Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

"we" blame Bush for what he did wrong, sorry if you cannot bear to....sm

Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-02-21
In Reply to: Oh, they blame Bush for everything. If we get - attacked with O in office, will be Bush's fault

take the blinders off. I thought Bill Clinton was a great Preident and humanitarian, but a LOUSY husband, but the country did not marry Clinton, and the Pubs with Ken Star and his WITCH HUNT went after Bill for what he did in his private sexual life that had nothing to do with his job as President. Wow, we impeached the guy and spent millions of tax dollars doing it!!! Yay! But he still led us one of the most prosperous times in American History budget-wise, and if he is kinky in his bedroom, so what? Do you want someone in your bedroom? What do you guys use as a measure for success? Blind loyalty was what REALLY got all the people to drink the Kool-Aid down in Jonestown, and with all the denial about the Bush years, I feel like we are down there in that jungle.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.

"We" did not do the righ thing...


Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....


We may never recover from President Obama, at least not in my lifetime.


I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren.


Libs refuse to call it socialism.


But that's what we're putting into office.


Bush opened the door a crack.



Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.



Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.
"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.

"We" did not do the righ thing...


Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....etc......


We may never recover from President Obama and his "change", at least not in my lifetime.


I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren, who will be left to foot the bill, and have less rights than we do now.


Libs refuse to call it socialism.


But that's what we're putting into office.


Bush opened the door a crack.



Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.


The barn door is wide open, and the winner take all (Obama). "Never let a good crisis go to waste" as his team has recently stated.


He has, and will, take full advantage of our fears, as even he, Obama, was the fear monger today.



Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K, (and other things I can't even imagine as of yet unveiled b....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.
You bear Thomas, we bear Ginsburg.
x
Well, of course you do, because it's something else to blame Bush for. nm

Bush really is to blame for everything

including natural disasters and including the fact that people built a city below sea level with water on all sides and was told that anything over a Cat 3 storm would wipe out the city.  The city failed in adequately planning to evacuate the people in case of such an emergency.   While I'm absolutely heartbroken to what is happening to people there, especially those who couldn't evacuate themselves the city has been told this would happen for years.  Even if Bush had not cut some funds to the area adequate plans would have still not been in place.  Everyone has said at one time or another that New Orleans was a disaster waiting for a Cat 4 or higher storm to happen.  You can pin this on Bush like you do everything else that happens in this world, but Bush is hardly to blame for the devastation.  Finger pointing does no good at this point.  We all must dig deep and do what we can do for those in New Orleans.  Arguing the political aspects of this disaster will not hydrate one dehydrated baby or feed one hungry person or build one adequate shelter.  


My advice to everyone is to step away from your computer, go buy some non-perishable items and get it to a relief point tomorrow.


We cant blame Bush?
Yes we can, yes we can. Have you not heard that one before? I see no reason to stop now.
Oh, they blame Bush for everything. If we get
nm
blame on bush's shoulders
Not my point at all.  Bush caused thousands of deaths, not I.  I am glad the American people are finally seeing him for what he is, a truly callous, self centered, immature, lying, vulgar man..I read a study by a psychiatrist who analyzed Bushs behavior and he labels Bush a sociopath.  The behaviors that Bush shows America and the world do fit criteria for sociopath.  I am not glad of any of the deaths.  Im just glad the Americans are seeing Bush in the true light.  He is not a uniter, he is a divider.  He is not a compassionate conservative, he is a hard core rich boy who caters to his class and the ones who have him in their pockets.  Our country has not been this divided since Nixon and the Vietnam War and Watergate.  He is so disconnected from reality and what the working class, middle class, who keep this country together really wants, needs and feels.  Put the blame where it belongs, on Bush's shoulders.
Wow, that's just ranting. Who will you blame once Bush is gone?
with some facts instead of raving like a lunatic. It sounds like you've been watching too many Michael Moore mockumentaries. Katrina is a good example, people were told to evacuate and didn't, then figured out hmm, maybe we shoulda evacuated. Sorry we didn't listen, but can you help us out NOW? Yes, the buses not being mobilized were troubling, but those buses that sat unused weren't Bush's fault.

Here's the scenario time and again: People don't listen or heed warnings and when there are consequences to that, they want to blame someone else. There were rescuers that risked their lives to save people who didn't listen to evacuation orders, what about them?? Would you do that for someone who didn't listen when you told them to get out of dodge?

But that aside, let's fast forward to Gustav. People are evacuated successfully when a cat. 4 hurricane is headed their way, but when Mother Nature (not Bush, Nagin, the weathermen, or anyone else) decides it will make landfall with less strength, then people complain because they were evacuated and safe! They complain that the RNC stopped to request aid for victims, oh that's all just a show. So they're all damned if they do and damned if they don't, and even if it's the beloved and revered Barack in office, it will be exactly the same in a few years from now. It will all be his fault because he's inexperienced, no matter that the majority of the people in the USA chose to vote him into office. (Oh, but that will be because of corruption at the ballots, no doubt, because we gotta blame anything but ourselves!)

No matter who is elected, I feel sorry for them because the majority of people want their hands held and handouts, few want to be accountable for themselves and their own actions, and MANY people want to place blame on someone or something for all their problems, even the ones that they brought upon themselves. No one person or agency can be there to save every person from every disaster, every pitfall, or just from themselves, so no matter who makes POTUS, they will be blamed and called names regardless because so many people in this country have lost any semblence of respect for their fellow human beings.
And here's the don't blame anyone but Bush rebuttal
like clockwork.
Even the republicans blame BUSH, where have u been? nm
n
Yep! That's it! Blame what Bush has done on Obama...

...again!  LOL!


How pitiful. 


Didn't vote for Bush, can't blame me for that...nm

The Patriot Act is up but some want to keep it, including Schumer. Don't blame Bush for that. nm

well, if this is true, I blame Bush, Cheney and all the damage
they have done to this country. The republicans will always go down in history as to blame.

They have had full control and yet still manage to blame everyone else for the problems.

Look around, because Bush has left this country with no other option but for the government to step in. This has been breeding because of his carelessness and ineptitude. He ruled like a king/tyrant in the white house.

This will be on his hands.
Yeah, and guess who he'll blame the whole four years....yep...bush...nm

Bush....they will still blame Bush.
nm
Don't blame Obama for the coins...blame the Franklin Mint!
The Franklin Mint has an entire series of presidential coins that are tacky and cheap looking just like everything else they manufacture.
Yes, but to many Cons, Bush can do no wrong.
off a cliff, they would. As long as they defend his murderous lying ways, we won't get anywhere. How can lying about a sexual escapade be more offensive and damaging to our country than lying about an illegal, immoral war? So, what, they love him because he is a consistent liar, etc.????

It is regrettable you call yourself a **recovering** Democrat, as I find that insulting in itself; do you really think you should be welcomed with open arms to a liberal board by using that term? Often it is the approach that is used that turns people off, as I belive is the case below. I am a Democrat and Democrats frustrate me to no end sometimes, but I would rather drink Drano and gouge my eyes out with a spoon than be a Republican...at least what it means now. There was a time when I respected them, but now I feel nothing but contempt for all they stand for. Neocons have hijacked what was once an honorable party with their fake moral values and hypocrisy which I simply cannot stomach.

And don't get me started on the media wimps.

Yes, it's a pity we can't remain civil in debate and to respect each other's differences and try to get along, but I fear those days are over, as long as people are too busy watching American Idol, et.al., and not paying attention to what is going on around them, defending corruption or, worse yet, remaining silent.
I don't see where anyone believes Bush has done no wrong
It's the fact that several of us don't believe he is the cause of all the suffering in the world like many of you here do. Some of us are not blinded by Bush hatred nor are we Bush loyalists to the point where we think he's done everything right. I believe several of the *crashers* on this board have said that, but you refused to either read the body of their posts or believe what they say.
Well, then, what has Bush done wrong in your opinion?

I'd like to know.


Bear in mind....
it is not the hothead in the white house who "pushes the button." It is your duly elected Congress. If the Dem majority can keep their collective fingers off the button it doesn't matter who is President. He cannot go to war by himself. I cannot see Congress, after Iraq, EVER agreeing to go to war unless we are attacked again in a very aggressive way and there is no doubt who did the attacking. But, whatever happens...it will be the decision of your duly elected Congress...not the President, whoever he or she may be.
We do have the right to bear arms in this
I said that because the poster made a comment and guns and ammo, so I told poster many people have that...what is the big deal? If you don't own firearms, that's your business but we do still have the right to have guns in our homes.
Sorry, wrong word....he DOES want to let the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE.
That will increase everyone's taxes across the board. THEN he will make his "tax cut." You will not see much of a cut, if any. Raising capital gains taxes is going to hurt the market, and about 50% or more of this country have their retirment and 401-Ks in the market...and not all of those people are RICH. You have to look at the BIG picture, not the class envy stuff he is feeding everyone.
You have it wrong nawnaw. That is including Bush cuts. nm
nm
Well, the truth is probably hard to bear. sm
Until the administrator asks me to leave, I will just keep posting.  I am not making personal attacks against posters. I am following the guidelines.  Besides, liberals are the turn tail chickens.  I don't let people run me off!
Yes, they do need an egg. And a woman to bear the child.
talking about 2 men who want a child. The surrogate only has to be a woman with a uterus. Her sexual orientation, and even her marital status, do not matter. That does not constitute a 'sexual relationship', though. She is artificially inseminated. And of course there is also adoption.
Wrong. Democrats are responsible for the mortgage meltdown, not Bush....
McCain tried to tell them in 2005...Dems blocked the regulation he begged for for Fannie/Freddie. But the Dems were too deep in the pockets...Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, Timothy Howard...all democrats, all walked away from fannie Mae with golden parachutes of millions...and we are left holding the bag. Fannie contributed more to Chris Dodd, Democratic head of Banking and COmmerce committe than any other senator in the past 20 years...followed closely by Barack Obama, who has only been IN the senate for 2 years...you do the math and follow the money. Democrats largely responsible for this. ANd you want to put one in the white house. Who wants to raise taxes in this financial crisis. What part of collapse of the economy don't you...and Mr. Obama...understand?
Now you're a polar bear lover?
xx
Let's blame Clinton...Let's blame Obama.
The FACT is that Bush BECAME prez on 01/20/01.  He was told by Clinton to beware!!  It was Bush's duty to know, to care what was going on.... the FACT is he didn't give a rat's patooty!!!  FACT is he was on vacation most of his first 7 months in office.  The FACT is he stared into space for 7 minutes after being told America was under attack while kindergarteners were reading "MY PET GOAT."  I am so sick of the LIES you people want to ram down my throat.  And when Obama takes office, God-willing, I am positive he will be under a microscope like NO president has ever been as there is a different standard set for him and never has a president-elect undergone so much criticisizm BEFORE taking office. 
Did you see that she had a polar bear lapel pin on today? Good job Sarah! nm
.
what "we" want is hardly the

issue.  The "folks" are gonna vote based on the level of reasoning they use in their everyday lives.  Will they vote from fear and the idea that the devil one knows is better than the devil one does not know.  Will they vote based on reasoned assessment that the country is circling the drain after 8 years of republican rule and the only hope is to wrest control of the country from their incompetent hands?  I am pleased with the way the polls are trending.  They are more thinking americans than there are cowering americans.  We'll try to save you even if you are dragged into the light kicking and screaming.


 


Someone to rule over us for her life time? I dont think so. Clarence Thomas is enough to bear with

Miers' Answer Raises Questions



  • Legal experts find a misuse of terms in her Senate questionnaire 'terrible' and 'shocking.'

  • By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


    WASHINGTON — Asked to describe the constitutional issues she had worked on during her legal career, Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers had relatively little to say on the questionnaire she sent to the Senate this week.

    And what she did say left many constitutional experts shaking their heads.

    At one point, Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in 1989. When the city was sued on allegations that it violated the Voting Rights Act, she said, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.

    But the Supreme Court repeatedly has said the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not mean that city councils or state legislatures must have the same proportion of blacks, Latinos and Asians as the voting population.

    That's a terrible answer. There is no proportional representation requirement under the equal protection clause, said New York University law professor Burt Neuborne, a voting rights expert. If a first-year law student wrote that and submitted it in class, I would send it back and say it was unacceptable.

    Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, also an expert on voting rights, said she was surprised the White House did not check Miers' questionnaire before sending it to the Senate.

    Are they trying to set her up? Any halfway competent junior lawyer could have checked the questionnaire and said it cannot go out like that. I find it shocking, she said.

    White House officials say the term proportional representation is amenable to different meanings. They say Miers was referring to the requirement that election districts have roughly the same number of voters.

    In the 1960s, the Supreme Court adopted the one person, one vote concept as a rule under the equal protection clause. Previously, rural districts with few voters often had the same clout in legislatures as heavily populated urban districts. Afterward, their clout was equal to the number of voters they represented. But voting rights experts do not describe this rule as proportional representation, which has a specific, different meaning.

    Either Miers misunderstood what the equal protection clause requires, or she was using loose language to say something about compliance with the one-person, one-vote rule, said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in election law. Either way, it is very sloppy and unnecessary. Someone should have caught that.

    Proportional representation was a focus of debate in the early 1980s. Democrats and liberal activists were pressing for Congress to change the Voting Rights Act to ensure minorities equal representation on city councils, state legislatures and in the U.S. House.

    They were responding to a 1980 case in which the Supreme Court upheld an election system in Mobile, Ala., that had shut out blacks from political power. The city was governed by a council of three members, all elected citywide. About two-thirds of voters were white and one-third black, but whites held all three seats.

    The Supreme Court said Mobile's system was constitutional, so long as there was no evidence it had been created for a discriminatory purpose.

    The equal protection clause does not require proportional representation, the court said in a 6-3 decision. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said the decision gave blacks the right to cast meaningless ballots.

    In response, Congress moved to change the Voting Rights Act to permit challenges to election systems that had the effect of excluding minorities from power. The Reagan administration opposed those efforts, saying they would lead to a proportional representation rule.

    Congress adopted a hazy compromise in 1982. It said election systems could be challenged if minorities were denied a chance to elect representatives of their choice…. Provided that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion of the population.

    This law put pressure on cities such as Dallas and Los Angeles and many states to redraw their electoral districts in areas with concentrations of black or Latino voters. The number of minority members of Congress doubled in the early 1990s after districts were redrawn.

    In Dallas, Miers supported a move to create City Council districts so black and Latino candidates would have a better chance of winning seats.

    She came to believe it was important to achieve more black and Hispanic representation, Hasen said. She could have a profound impact as a justice if she brought that view to the court. So from the perspective of the voting rights community, they could do a lot worse than her.

    White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also emphasized that Miers' experience was more important than her terminology.

    Ms. Miers, when confirmed, will be the only Supreme Court Justice to have actually had to comply with the Voting Rights Act, she said.


    Actually I don't think it's fair that smokers bear the brunt of paying for children's healt
    And no, I'm not a current smoker. It just seems unfair that a single group should pay for most of the costs. Why not tax soda pop or junk snack food? That's contributing to the childhood obesity episode - and poor health - so why not make those products pay for SCHIP?
    "We have seen this movie before...
    it's called Hugo Chavez and Venezuela." PERFECT comeback. And I got blasted for suggesting there were liberals in Congress who wanted to nationalize oil. So I will say it again...far left liberals like Maxine Waters, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy to name a few...ARE socialists, just more sneaky about it...until she just got ticked and blurted it out. We better ALL hope they don't go there. That is the danger of voting in socialists. Good-bye America, hello Venezuela.
    "We" know no such thing. Please do not
    The scope of the issue is obviously beyond your comprehension.
    "We've got them just where we want them." JM.
    This is what we hear after being told JM would make a statement on the economy. 
    "WE" were never told about anything.....
    That's the problem. We, the citizens of this country, the ones who the govt is supposed to work FOR, put this into law without even Congress being consulted....without congressional consent...PERIOD!

    The only "objectives" are being pushed through quietly by Obama and unless people wake up and start protesting loudly and clearly, and taking back this country, we are going to be another russia.... for those that don't believe that, then ask yourself why Russian politicans AND European politicians are telling Obama he needs to stop what he is doing, that he is heading down the wrong path; the very one THEY have already been down! How telling is that?!
    My favorite is SR's "We don't know what plan is"
    nm
    I beg to differ, it IS about "we" people.
    Yes, I am a middle class American. I still have healthy savings and the credit cards I have are not maxed, because of choices I have made. You cannot blame the Republicans for peoples' bad decisions. I am not a Republican; I am an Independent. Though I have to say...if any party has been hijacked it is the Democrats...might as well change the name to the socialist party, because that is what it has become. That is evident in the posts I see here. They have convinced you that the wealthy people/corporations in the world are evil. If you knew how corporations figured into the economy of this country, you would know that is just not true. Corporations employ millions of Americans. Small businesses employ most of the rest of us. Democrats want to tax them into oblivion and drive even more business offshore to get out from under the tax burden. We have a higher tax on our businesses than any other country...which makes us extremely noncompetitive. THAT is why we lose jobs overseas and jobs here. Because the Democratic party has put the rax rate so high.

    I don't want more and bigger government...I want less. I don't want higher taxes. I want less. I want businesses to be able to open and operate and compete with business outside our shores rather than join that business to get out from under taxes. I would like for Democrats to follow the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights, not just the parts that serve their agenda. I would like to get back to the place in America where we are Americans first, and Democrats/Republicans second. I would like politics in Washington to change, and Obama is not the one to do that. He and his VP are the #1 and #3 most liberal senators in the senate. They are washington politics as usual. Obama's entire career has been washington politics as usual...as is Biden's...30 years in the senate in washington. They are exactly opposite of any change. That is simple fact.

    As to Republicans not making country stronger...that is the one major thing I agree with Bush on. He HAS kept this country safe. He has kept us on the offensive. And that is why we have not had another attack. AL Qaeda is much weaker. We drove them out of Iraq. I have no reason to think McCain will not continue that. He has said he would, and with his military experience, I believe him.

    Obama is scary to me for that reason. I think he is soft on terrorism. He talks about "factions" of radical Islam and how you have to identify the "faction." That says to me he doesn't get it.

    I do not agree that all the kids want Obama. However...this election is about all Americans, young, middle-aged, older. We all matter in this election.
    "We know" -- ouch I am being excluded.

    I shall probably die.


     


    or the other quote...."we will take them over from inside...
    without firing a shot." I agree, "bombing everything off the map" is not something you would engage in with Russia...but being firm is essential. They have to know that any aggression would be answered. To put it in very base terms, they want to see if he blinks...if there is a chink they can exploit. Will reserve any supposition or comment until he responds...giving benefit of the doubt and all that.
    who in the world are you referring to as "we"
    I never saw respect for Bush coming from the opposing side.

    I agree that this day shouldn't be about bickering at all... and I welcome the new President

    but please who are you referring to when you say "we" because that is a nice comment that you made, it makes sense you didn't like his policies, that is okay, but you really dont believe for a minute that people defended up?

    wait i just read it again and you MUST be being sarcastic...
    When they have to cough up "we are bankrupt."

    Nobody has the balls to say the word.  We print Monopoly money because we don't have anything else.  Try spending that before long.


    Enough is enough already!


    "we'll bury you???"...(sm)

    You guys are wising up?  ROFL...I would say you're just mad because you are going down the tubes with your party. 


    In case you haven't noticed (and I'm sure you rarely notice much of anything), intimidation and threats on message boards rarely work and serve only one purpose -- that is to make those who would use these tactics look like a fool.


    Maybe you should change your threats to threats of torture ---- that worked soooo well for Bush...Yeah, he's going down, and it's about time!!!  


    says "we're sorry...this video is no longer available...nm
    nm
    And George kept up with those "we are not in a recession" speeches, hilarious but tragic....nm
    nm
    wrong, full of wrong statements, see my upper post...nm
    nm
    Wrong Woman - Wrong Message
    http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-wrong-woman-wrong-message
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, clueless Lu.
    Horse hockey
    blame
    September 1, 2005
    Conservatives Helped This Happen
    by Dan Pashman, Senior Producer,  Morning Sedition


    As terrible as it is, this attack could be miniscule if,  in fact, God
    continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies  of  America  to
    give us probably what we deserve. The ACLU's got to take a lot  of the
    blame for this…The abortionists have got to bear some of the burden for
    this because God will not be mocked…I really believe that  the pagans,
    and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays  and the
    lesbians…all of them who have tried to secularize America,  I point the
    finger in their face and say, 'you helped this happen.'
      - Rev. Jerry Falwell, September 13, 2001

    Who can forget Jerry Falwell's infamous post-9/11 indictment of
    America?  'You helped this happen,' Falwell said to the majority of
    Americans,  who disagree with him on a majority of issues.

    Now, a conservative group called Columbia Christians for Life has
    proclaimed that Hurricane Katrina was another one of God's punishments,
      citing as evidence the supposed resemblance between the hurricane's 
    image on a weather map, and a fetus.

    Trying to refute such claims from these zealots is truly an exercise in
    futility. But searching for explanations after a disaster of Katrina's 
    magnitude is not. And if you do in fact search for those explanations, 
    you'll reach an unavoidable conclusion:

    Hurricane Katrina may have been an act of God. But the level of death 
    and destruction it caused was not. That was an act of conservatism.

    It is conservative policies that made this natural disaster unnaturally
      catastrophic. I say to conservatives, you have blood on your hands 
    today. I point the finger in your face and say, You helped this
    happen.

    Conservative policies have led to an increase in poverty across the
    nation, especially in New Orleans, one of the poorest major cities  in
    America. About 150,000 people in New Orleans lived below the poverty 
    line before Katrina, 100,000 of them in abject poverty, making less 
    than $8,000 a year. Their poverty left them with nowhere to go, and  no
    means of escape, as the hurricane bore down on their homes.

    Conservative policies have led to more global warming, which scientists
      agree has already begun producing more intense hurricanes and storms. 
    Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, a former Republican Party Chairman 
    and longtime GOP operative, has seen his own state ravaged by Katrina. 
    But he was vital in helping to convince the Bush administration to 
    squash the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, and pushed Bush to go 
    back on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide. Governor
    Barbour  would dare express grief over the deaths that he himself
    enabled.

    Conservative policies have led to a war in Iraq based on lies, and tax
    cuts for the rich, both of which, we know for a fact, took money
    directly away from vital hurricane preparedness work in New Orleans. 
    On nine occasions in 2004 and 2005, The New Orleans Times-Picayune
    specifically  cited the cost of the Iraq War as a reason for the
    shortfall in hurricane-  and flood-control funds. The levees that gave
    way under  Katrina's pressure were supposed to be upgraded with money
    that ended  up in Halliburton’s coffers.

    Conservative policies have also led to the National Guard's misuse and
    abuse, leaving the Gulf Coast without the personnel and equipment 
    vital to a recovery effort of this magnitude. More people will die  on
    the Gulf Coast as they await their would-be saviors, who are in  Iraq,
    victims themselves of conservative policies.

    There can be no doubt that while Hurricane Katrina was not preventable,
      much of the death and destruction left in its wake was. I say to
    conservatives,  you have blood on your hands today. I point the finger
    in your face  and say, You helped this happen.