Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Actual entry in Reagan's diary

Posted By: Anon on 2008-03-30
In Reply to:

Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his

diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper

Collins

"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around

this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one

who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking

shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a

real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll

hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy

work."

From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

Actual entry in Reagan's diary - Anon
- False. Check out info for facts first. - Wfan

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

If you had seen the actual
video tape of him saying that.....he was obviously joking. He himself said that he was sure that joke would be taken out of context.......and he was right.

Ron Reagan
Is great and tells it like it is. Keep spreading the TRUTH, Ron.

Actually....this is the actual poll...
While Republicans and Democrats predictably favor their party�s candidate by overwhelming margins, the experience gap among voters unaffiliated with either party is even narrower than the national totals. Forty-two percent (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.

These are unaffiliated voters....37% of which say she has more experience to be President. That is just a 5% difference...not 61%.

Ahem.

It is not so much the actual hunting that I
am truly opposed of, it is the tactics used. If you are going to hunt them, then truly hunt them. Don't sit in a plane in the dead of winter and shoot at a defenseless animal like that. Get out of your friggin' plane, get on the ground and hunt. I come from a very long line of hunters and none of them would ever consider that truly hunting.

I am vegan, so I yes I am against the slaughter of animals. But, I do realize that sometimes it is necessary in certain circumstances to thin out a herd so they don't suffer in extremely harsh conditions.

I also realize that people hunt so they have food, that there are still people who get their primary meat this way and cannot afford to buy it in a store. I have had many different kinds of animal flesh before I quit eating it, and I do not pass judgment to those who hunt for food. I do oppose using the term "hunt" for the mass slaughter of animals. If you are truly against cruelty, like you say you are, then you would realize that aerial hunting of these wolves is cruel. Did you watch that video and see how the wolf is suffering? That is cruelty defined.

There probably isn't an actual video.........sm
since this was an interview given to a newspaper and not a television station. I'm sure it was only audio taped, hence the picture where the video would be. Why do believe that it is not his voice or that he is not actually saying what we all hear he is saying?

Thank you! There are so many actual important
issues to be discussing rather than wasting time on their silly fairy tale while the economy crumbles.

Yes, Joe was an actual plumber...

...living in Ohio, throwing a football with his son in the front yard when the whole Obamarama came down his street and Obama invited Joe to ask a question. Joe asked: If you are elected, are you going to raise my taxes? Obama answered: It's good to spread the wealth around and give everyone the advantages you've had.

Joe was obviously planted in his own front yard just to sandbag Obama with a trick question and entrap him into revealing the true agenda. Republicans are so devious!

What happened after this was extremely interesting. Media started to investigate Joe as though he were a candidate, not just Joe Citizen.

They unearthed and published the information that he was not even a licensed plumber. (In fact, no license was legally required because he was an employee, although he was working toward buying the plumbing business.) His trash was stolen from in front of his house - a standard investigative technique. Joe's driving record was accessed - illegally - and details made public. I think I even remember hearing he owed some money to the IRS.

His OJFS records were accessed several times (Ohio Job and Family Services are the ones who administer unemployment, child support, etc.) and, mysteriously, information about his divorce and child support ended up in the news. The (dem) head of OJFS then tried to cover by saying this is common practice anytime a person becomes a celebrity. However, this was easily disproved. (The woman was allowed to resign. She and two assistants are the ones being sued.)

All for having the poor judgment to ask a question of Obama, when invited to. A lot has been said over the yeas about Nixon and his enemies list, but our new president is someone not to be crossed, not by a Joe Citizen, certainly not by a Limbaugh.

Get 'em, Joe!

Those of us with actual brains, & can think for ourselves,
to make our decisions for us, tell us what to think or how to be, tell us whom to judge, or how to vote. From back in the days of the Crusades, religion has always been about a few men controlling other people. And they learned a long time ago that those who are most easily controlled are those with feeble minds and no free will.

Non-Reagan is an idiot. sm
He's a disgrace to his father's memory and to his living mother. He knows nothing! Come on people. You can do better than this! I would accept Alan Colmes or Dan Rather, but NON REAGAN???? Unbelievable!

And Reagan?..he armed
was fighting Iran. We were in bed with Saddam, when Reagan was president...have you forgotten that? What does that make us?

When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush

September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.

Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.

Bush and Reagan....
Each had one known accusation...the woman who accused Bush had definite mental problems (see below) and the accusation against Reagan was in the 50's...one accusation. Clinton has had several of all kinds of sexual allegations made against him. Like I said, I know Juanita Broaddrick. Bottom line, Reagan and Bush had one isolated allegation against them...see below for the one against Bush. Not hardly the same thing at all. I did not say Clinton was morally bankrupt because he was a Democrat...he is a Democrat who happens to be morally bankrupt. Was and still is.

George W. Bush Rape Allegation

In 2002, Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas, a writer of Christian books, filed a pro se lawsuit against George W. Bush alleging that Bush had raped her in October 2000.[9]. The complaint also claims that she had been harassed, that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and two other men purporting to be FBI agents, that her bank account had been interfered with, and that she had been threatened and beaten. There was no substantiating evidence for any of her claims. The suit also claimed Bush raped her husband, Christopher. Christopher allegedly served a year in prison after pleading no contest to assault charges against his wife. He later filed for divorce.

Many believed Schoedinger suffered from mental disorders. Among American newspapers, Schoedinger's ordeal was covered only by the local Fort Bend Star, whose editor is said to have off-handedly opined, I had heard she was a nut case. [10]

This lady later committed suicide.

no--Reagan was generalizing
it just applied to Obama. We can learn from things that people have said in the past.

If you can't spell REAGAN, I don't want you to have a gun nm
nm

man, I left out Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related

SP's actual speech to secessionists

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809030019?f=h_latest

Please site an actual instance where anyone...sm
was banned from WEARING a religious symbol such as a cross, star of David or any other religious symbol to school.

I went to the actual Il. gov. website and read the - sm
actual bill, not just the parts that this sweetness-light.com website put on there. The whole bill starts out saying that parents first have to sign a consent form in order for their children to participate. As you are reading through the bill it states, "All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate."

Sam, do you honestly think he is supporting teaching the same sex ed that you might get in high school to Kindergartners. I mean really.

You are always mentioning these leftist sites like Huffington, well this is clearly an all conservative site. I didn't go through it all, but it doesn't seem to be very objective.

my actual reason is more selfish than this...
I want to keep as much of my paycheck as I can to pay for the carpal tunnel release that I will eventually need!

Read The Actual Bill
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text

If you're so concerned, one would think you'd actually read the bill as written, rather than rely on someone else with a clear agenda to do your interpreting for you.

Gimme a break.

What actual credible plot was NOT
many bombs struck your neighborhood? Girl, you need to get a life! Oh, that's right, you said you did already. Transcribing 3500 lines a day, then the rest of a day stirring the pot on an internet forum just isn't my idea of a life.

i would be the one losing my ACTUAL HOME
UNFORTUNATELY, I TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and i pay my mortgage, even if i was one of the ones that they should not have given a loan to. and i have an ARM, and an interest only loan, which i pay more to each month, etc. etc.... BUT if i was in default, maybe i'd get some help...

and you cannot deny that Clinton put this into action
and that McCain or Bush did not foresee it and ask for an overhaul.
no matter who is at fault WHO IS THE ONE THAT TRIED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT LONG BEFORE THIS MESS???

I did - and I'm the one who provided the actual quote
Look. Just get this straight. If you know anything about Boehner at all, you will know perfectly well that he does not support the notion that cold rooms, sleep deprivation and caterpillars add up to torture.

Intellectual honesty is a wonderful thing. Waiting to "pounce" on any fortuitous language that suits your purpose when you know very well that's what you're doing is NOT intellectual honesty and speaks ill of the character of those who practice this form of charade. I certainly don't respect you for it, although I do respect honesty in political discourse. I wish it weren't so rare.

Pastime is an actual noun.
It means a way to pass the time (not something that happened in a past time.) The hyphen (that little horizontal line [-] thing) is wrong. No need for thanks, always glad to help an ESL Transcriptionist sharpen her skills.

Former Reagan official: Is another 9/11 is in the works?

(There is NOTHING this administration could do that would surprise me. )

March 16, 2006

Is Another 9/11 in the Works?

by Paul Craig Roberts

If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?

Yes, you would.

Bush�s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.

First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.

Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.

Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.

Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.

Fifth, Bush�s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush�s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?

That�s what Bush is doing.

Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.

The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country�s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.

In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.

It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.

Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel�s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some black ops group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush�s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world�s doubts of the explanation.

Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn�t it?

Fantasy? Let�s hope so.

I agree too. Former Reagan Republican here.sm
I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Bush the first time, sorry I did. 16 years of corrupt politics, lies, and scandals is hard to deal with. Clinton turned the White House into a ho house and Bush is turning it into the Reichstag. Think the country would be better off if Larry the Cable Guy was President.

Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".

Reagan's Socialist Legacy

An interesting article that expounds on several decades.......for a complete review, here's the link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/scheer

Reagan's Socialist Legacy

by: Robert Scheer

Although gan's we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal healthcare, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe's. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don't understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.

The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama's watch is an extension of Bush's banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don't want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?

If you watched the actual show you might have understood it
Glenn Beck actually cares about what is going on in this country. He is giving the everyday American a chance to let our voices be heard.

If you go to his website (which I'm sure you wouldn't do) he talks about "Project 9.12". He talks about the 9 principles and 12 values. He's allowing people like you and me a chance to let our voices be heard. The country is going down a dark hole and if it doesn't get fixed we will never see the light again (AIG is just one of the many things that will bring it down).

Unlike whiny Olberlame or Mathpukes. Those two make my skin crawl. I can take Rachel Maddow to a certain extent but then she gets on her whiny role too. Your viewpoint of any other news station other than My Socialist News Butt Channel (MSNBC) is so pathetic in it's writing. If your going to go down the road of blatant money-grubbing, media hogs who pray on the pathetic then you are talking about the liberal media stations. Talk about praying on the pathetic ignor@nt. You want to see hate-spewing turn on the MSNBC crowd. When things don't go their way it's like watching a bunch of rabid dogs foaming at the mouth attaching anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Maybe it would be good to actually watch the Beck show before commenting on it because then you would at least might remotely possibly know what your talking about. Otherwise it looks like another agent of MSNBC is filtering on this board.

I guess you think that having people who are liberal on as guests and treating them with respect, letting them speak what's on their mind and saying. "Okay, I'll give you that. I may not agree with you, but your entitled to your opinions" I guess you consider that hateful spewing??? I don't get it. You go to MSNBC (watched that station through the Bush years because my viewpoints were more aligned with theirs), but after awhile you just gotta step back and say wait a minute, that's not fair no matter whether I don't like the other side or not. There is a time when you have to start thinking for yourself. Fox channel does that. They present issues and don't tell you how you should be thinking. They let you decide for yourself. They give both sides an equal chance. But if your one of those liberal loving all democrats do nothing wrong and all republicans do nothing right, and you only get your news from the liberal stations, then yes, what you wrote is true about the "pathetic uneducated half-wits that hang on every word of their hateful spewing garbage" by Mathpukes and Olberlame and the likes of that station.

In case you don't know, America is waking up and turning to Fox and turning off MSNBC, CNN and others because we want to hear the truth. Not the mean-spiritic spew that comes from those stations.

BTW - Fox has 1,217,000 viewers compared to the socialist MSNBC station of 480,000 and Communist News Network of 633,000. That's more than twice as many people. At least I feel like I'm in good company.

Never heard of rape charges against Reagan or GW. sm
Also, Kaye Summersby, Ike's *supposed* mistress said that they were very close but never consummated anything.

and when Ronald Reagan was prez, NANCY was

So, Ronald Reagan is a black liberationist
The windfall profits tax was not actually a tax on profit. Please read up on it's history. It was an excise tax which was enacted April 2, 1980, during the last year of the Carter administration. Interesting to note that it was not repealed until August 23, 1988. It stayed in effect for 7 years, 4 months and 21 days under Ronald Reagan; in other words, for 92% of his entire time in office. So does that make Ronald Reagan a Marxist/socialist black liberationist too?

Noonan (reagan speech writer) on

caught with microphone still on. Speaking with Mike Murphy, a repub talking head about SP's qualifications.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-usnoon045828642sep04,0,1097812.story

A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate
There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism � government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.

Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm
that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.

Obama apolgizes to Nancy Reagan

We all know Obama has a sense of humor. He's likeable and funny and I enjoy hearing him speak. But he really should think before he speaks, and not try to make jokes. Americans are needing issues to be solved, not seeing how funny our President elect is. This is a very serious and grave time for America and we need some reassurance that he will do what he promised on his campaign trail. He spoke of Hope through his campaign. Now we need to see the hope turn into reality. I had read a lot of articles from both liberal and conservative sources that he doesn't do well with "off the cuff" comments and I think he should stick to the speeches that are written for him.

Like I said - I like Obama. He's a good speaker. But his comment about Nancy Reagan whether you like her or not was indeed making fun of her and unecessary. He should have just said, "I've talked to the past presidents" and left it at that. By him having to state they were alive??? The public is not so stup!d that we wouldn't know he didn't mean the "dead" Presidents. I hope that's not what he thought. I'm just glad he called her to apologize.

On another note I watched the press conference he gave and I would have like to have heard a little more about what he's going to do once he gets in the white house, who he is picking for his cabinet, and what are the first things he is going to do to help Americans and what promises he gave to us that he will be able to keep and work on first. Not what kind of dog he is going to get or where his kids go to school. That does not affect American and I like many of my friends don't care. We care about issues that affect us.

Here is the link to the actual letter on the boston globe...
website.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/

Well, it certainly gives me more pause than abstinence and sex education.

BTW, no the actual sneak in the draft registration thing
nm

special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005

"There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom.

Whatever. How about addressing the actual issues I raised in my post for a change? (NT)

I don't think any sane person would say wishing Bush would die and burn in hell is an actual death

...particulary in the context of a heated political forum.

I think people are needing to create some drama to justify their actions.

The point is that both sides are naughty at times. I do notice more personal attacks by the C's though and I looked at the posts pretty carefully. The L's seem to rely on political/lifestyle issues to upset the C's and the C's just seem to respond with barking orders and making personal attacks (liberals are sissies, etc.)

The difference is that only the L's seem to be deleted and chastised on a regular basis. Isn't this rather unfair and un-American. It's called a double-standard and is not a pretty sight (and makes this not a pretty site)!!!!

Please describe the actual physical threat that you allege was made on this internet chat board.

Thank you.

Bush inherited Powell from Clinton who inherited him from Reagan.
Bush wouldn't have had the sense to pick Powell all by himself. Have you heard the latest on Condi? She's been palling around with senior Hamas leaders, sending them thank you notes and such.

Here's how that other thing works. When the fringers stop lying, dems stop denying. It's not that complicated.

Yeah right. Served under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II
x