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

Check the source for Observer's Murtha article....

Posted By: Taiga on 2007-11-30
In Reply to: Here's the sad part... - piglet

It is from a right-wing pro-war blog called "Politico."  If you read a more non-partisan source you'll find that Murtha added a very large caveat to his comment.


Observer's "facts" would be so much more credible if she would quit posting from right-wing partisan sources.  If I were to repeatedly or constantly post on the Conservative board what I thought was the "truth" and all backed up by far left-wing blogs/publications I don't think I'd get very far and after I while I'd probably try to provide more non-partisan sources for my statements if I wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.   




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

Consider the source of the article...
Russian professor came up with this "idea". Russian economists are shoveling out this crap, so there you have it. They of course would love to see nothing but a U.S. divided..... they have lived with division for so long, they have nothing but envy for the United States, a country that is ONE union, not several broken countries fighting and waring with one another over power.


I didn't see a source for this article. Also, it says a lot about you

that you would root for Chavez over Colin Powell.  Chavez is losing popularity in his own government.  His socialist promises are becoming more and more difficult to see to fruition, just as always happens.  In the end, the entire countries go bankrupt and no one wins. Just as in history.  









Chavez Popularity Sags in Venezuelan Polls


21 September 2005
Bowman report - Download 567k
Listen to Bowman report








Hugo
Hugo Chavez gestures during U.N. press conference, Thursday
For the first time in nearly two years, public opinion polls in Venezuela are showing backing for President Hugo Chavez dipping below 50 percent.   But the country's opposition is splintered, disorganized and disengaged.  With presidential elections slated for next year, it remains to be seen whether the populist, self-proclaimed socialist leader will face a real test at the ballot box.


President Chavez' political fortunes have swung wildly in recent years.  In 2002, he was briefly removed from power in a failed coup.  Months later, his approval rating sank to 30 percent during a national strike.


But he came roaring back to crush a recall referendum last year, with official tallies showing nearly 60 percent voting to keep him in office.  As recently as May of this year, his approval rating stood at 70 percent, buoyed by soaring oil revenues and massive expenditures on social programs.


But a poll released earlier this month showed backing for Mr. Chavez at 47 percent.  One opposition leader who is contemplating a presidential bid next year, Caracas newspaper publisher Teodoro Petkoff, says a gap is emerging between the public's expectations and Mr. Chavez' ability to meet them, regardless of how much oil money flows into the country.


Increasingly, demands are being heard from his own political base, demands for results, he said.  This is an indication that too many promises have not been kept.  And while Chavez' message remains popular, satisfaction with his programs is waning.


But Alfredo Keller, who heads the Caracas firm that conducted the survey, says one should not read too much into the recent data showing Chavez-backers slipping below the 50-percent mark.


One could therefore conclude that the opposition is now in the majority, said Mr. Keller.  That is not necessarily so, because those who do not back the government do not necessarily back the political opposition.  Venezuela is divided into three blocks: those who support the government, those who oppose it and those who want nothing to do with the government or the opposition.


On the streets of Caracas, retiree Eva Maldonado says she believes in President Chavez and his promises to help the poor.  But even she says she would like to see a viable opposition in the country.


I think there should be an opposition, because I believe in the democratic process, she said.  I do not believe in single-party rule, but unfortunately the opposition here is weak.


The high point of the opposition's influence came in late 2002, when it launched a national strike that ground the country to a halt for several months.  Yet President Chavez refused to give in to opposition demands that he resign, and the strike eventually crumbled.  After a year of legal battles, the opposition did manage to secure a recall referendum in 2004. 


But political science professor Ricardo Sucre Heredia, who teaches at Venezuela's Central University, says the opposition had no message other than to continue railing against the president.


Why did the opposition lose the referendum?  Because it was incapable of telling people what its program would be, he explained.  People said, 'I will stick with President Chavez because at least I know what he will do.'  People will not support an opposition that does not convey confidence, security, or an idea where the country should be taken.


President Chavez' allies control the legislature, the judiciary, and many local governments.  Professor Sucre Heredia says such a concentration of power can only lead to abuses.


The country is facing the terrible possibility of [Chavez' political] hegemony, of an authoritarian democracy, of the elimination of liberty, of copying the Cuban model - in short, the terrible possibility of a government that does whatever it wants, as it is doing right now, he added.


But President Chavez recently dismissed such concerns in an appearance on state-run television, noting that he was democratically elected nearly seven years ago, that his continued governance was confirmed in 2004, and that the people will have their say once again in presidential elections next year.


Our proposal is a democracy that is not only representative, but also participatory.  And a democracy that advances fundamental human rights, said Mr. Chavez.


As for next year's elections, no one is counting out the opposition.  But even among observers who would like to see a change in government, many wonder whether the opposition will be able to field a candidate with the stature and the resources to forge a campaign that truly challenges the incumbent.



I was talking about the article you posted with no source. sm
And my point was if you believe everything that is written, well...never mind.  Rush likes to gets libs going and it looks like it worked for you.  I like him.  MY opinion is that he not what you say he is, so we will have to just agree to disagree. 
consider the source of this article...read with caution...sm
not to mention a handful of salt....

liberal columnist at her best
check article above
Well, we might just get an investigation into the Downing Street Memos after all and then when it is proven that Bush contrived this war and lied for this war, you can post here that yes Bush is a liar.  I refer you to the above post about the Downing Street Memos above.  Interesting article.  States finally a republican is wanting an investigation into the Downing Street Memos, as so far it has only been democrats asking for an investigation.
Fact Check. Katrina: What Happened When (long article)
Katrina: What Happened When

It will take months to get the full story, but meanwhile here are some of the key facts about what happened and when officials acted.


September 16, 2005



Summary



 


Multiple investigations are likely into the response by federal, state, and local officials to the disastrous flooding of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.  New facts are still emerging, and we expect it will be months or years before a full picture can be properly assessed.


In response to numerous requests, we present here a brief timeline of events, as best as we can document them from public records and the best news reporting from the scene. We do not blame or excuse anyone, and leave it to others to judge what, if anything, could or should have been done differently. All times are converted to Central Daylight Time.



Analysis



 


July 23, 2004 - 13 Months Before Katrina


The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducts Hurricane Pam exercise to assess results of a theoretical Category 3 hurricane. It assumes that a storm with 120-mph winds would force Lake Pontchartrain's waters over the tops of the New Orleans' 17.5-foot levees and through a gap in the levee system would flood major portions of the city and would damage up to 87 percent of the city's homes. The Times-Picayune reports that officials expect up to half the city's residents won't evacuate and that many will be trapped in attics, on rooftops, and in makeshift shelters for days.


—In Case of Emergency, New Orleans Times-Picayune, as posted  on the website of the Louisiana Homeland Security & Emergency Preparedness, 20 Jul 2004.


Friday, Aug 26 2005 - 3 Days Prior to Katrina's Louisiana Landfall


Hurricane Katrina strikes Florida between Hallandale Beach and North Miami Beach as a Category 1 hurricane with 80 mph winds.  Eleven people die from hurricane-related causes.


—A chronology of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, Associated Press, 3 Sep 2005.


The storm heads into the Gulf of Mexico and by 10:30 am CDT is reported to be rapidly strengthening.


—Hurricane Katrina Special Advisory Number 13 , National Hurricane Center, 26 Aug 2005.


Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declares a State of Emergency in Louisiana.


—Governor Blanco Declares State of Emergency,  Louisiana Governor's Office, 26 Aug 2005.


Saturday, Aug 27 2005 - 2 Days Prior


Blanco asks President Bush to declare a State of Emergency for the state of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina.  Bush does so, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA to coordinate all disaster relief efforts… and freeing up federal money for the state.


—Governor Blanco asks President to Declare an Emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina,  Louisiana Governor's Office , 27 Aug 2005.    


Statement on federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana, Office of the White House Press Secretary, 27 Aug 2005.


Katrina is a Category 3 storm, predicted to become Category 4. At 4pm CDT, it is still 380 miles from the mouth of the Mississippi.


—Hurricane Katrina Special Advisory Number  18,  National Hurricane Center  , 26 Aug 2005.


Director of the National Hurricane Center, Max Mayfield, calls the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi and the mayor of New Orleans to warn of potential devastation. The next day he participates in a video conference call to the President, who is at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.


—Tamara Lush, For forecasting chief, no joy in being right  , St. Petersburg Times , 30 Aug 2005.


Sunday, Aug. 28 2005 - 1 Day Prior


1 a.m. - Katrina is upgraded to a Category 4 storm with wind speeds reaching 145 mph.


—Hurricane Katrina Special Advisory Number 20,  National Hurricane Center, 28 Aug 2005.


7 a.m. - Katrina is upgraded to a potentially catastrophic Category 5 storm. NOAA predicts coastal storm surge flooding of 15 to 20 feet above normal tide levels.


—Hurricane Katrina Special Advisory Number 22,  National Hurricane Center , 28 Aug 2005.


—New Orleans braces for monster hurricane,   CNN.com, 29 Aug 2005.


9:30 a.m. - With wind speeds reaching 175 mph, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin orders a mandatory evacuation of the city after speaking with Bush.  The evacuation call comes only 20 hours before Katrina would make landfall – less than half the time that researchers had determined was necessary to evacuate the city.


—Gordon Russell, Nagin orders first-ever mandatory evacuation of New Orleans , New Orleans Times-Picayune , 31 Aug 2005.


—Lise Olsen, City had evacuation plan but strayed from strategy , Houston Chronicle , 8 Sep 2005.


10 a.m. - NOAA raises their estimate of storm surge flooding to 18 to 22 feet above normal tide levels. The levee protecting New Orleans from Lake Pontchartrain is only 17.5 feet tall; the Mississippi River levee reaches 23 feet.


—Hurricane Katrina Special Advisory Number 23  National Hurricane Center  , 28 Aug 2005.


The Associated Press reports that New Orleans could become a vast cesspool tainted with toxic chemicals, human waste and even coffins released…from the city's legendary cemeteries.


The storm threatened an environmental disaster of biblical proportions , one that could leave more than 1 million people homeless, the AP says.


—Matt Crenson, Katrina may create environmental catastrophe on epic scale, Associated Press , 28 Aug 2005.


11:31 a.m. - The President – at his ranch in Crawford – speaks briefly to reporters. His statement contains 203 words about Katrina and 819 congratulating Iraqis on their new constitution. We will do everything in our power to help the people in the communities affected by this storm, he says of the approaching hurricane.


President Discusses Hurricane Katrina , Congratulates Iraqis on Draft Constitution, Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford, Texas, 28 Aug 2005.


8:30 p.m. - An empty Amtrak train leaves New Orleans, with room for thousands of potential evacuees. We offered the city the opportunity to take evacuees out of harm's way…The city declined, said Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black. The train left New Orleans no passengers on board.


—Susan Glasser, The Steady Buildup to a City's Chaos , The Washington Post , 11 Sep 2005.


Two weeks later, Nagin denies on NBC's Meet the Press  that Amtrak offered their services. Amtrak never contacted me to make that offer, the mayor tells host Tim Russert.  I have never gotten that call, Tim, and I would love to have had that call. But it never happened.


Interview with Mayor Nagin , Meet the Press, NBC, 11 Sep 2005.


Monday August 29, 2005 - Day of Katrina


6 a.m. - Katrina makes landfall on Louisiana coast as a strong Category 4 storm, with sustained winds of nearly 145 mph and predicted coastal storm surge of up to 28 feet. The National Hurricane Center warns that some levees in the greater New Orleans area could be overtopped. It says a weather buoy located about 50 miles east of the mouth of the Mississippi river had reported waves heights of at least 47 feet.


—Hurricane Katrina Intermediate Advisory Number 26A …Corrected,    National Hurricane Center  , 29 Aug 2005.


8.a.m. - The storm surge sends water sloshing up the Industrial Canal, and local officials immediately report flooding on both sides. Winds break a barge loose and it strikes the levee.


—John McQuaid, Katrina trapped city in double disasters, New Orleans Times-Picayune, 7 Sep 2005.


9 a.m. - The eastern part of the city and Bernard Parish are already flooded several feet deep, even before the eye of the storm has passed. Thousands of survivors are trapped. But worse flooding is to come: within hours, city canal floodwalls will also collapse and a second, slower wave of flooding will take place.


—John McQuaid, Katrina trapped city in double disasters , New Orleans Times-Picayune , 7 Sep 2005.


11 a.m. - New Orleans is spared a direct hit, as the center of the storm passes over the Louisiana-Mississippi state line 35 miles away from the city. Maximum sustained winds are now reduced, but still a strong Category 3 storm with 125 mph winds.


—Hurricane Katrina Advisory Number 27,  National Hurricane Center , 29 Aug 2005.


11:06 a.m . - Bush promotes his Medicare prescription drug benefit at a 44-minute event in El Mirage, Arizona. He devotes 156 words to the hurricane, among them: I want the folks there on the Gulf Coast to know that the federal government is prepared to help you when the storm passes. I want to thank the governors of the affected regions for mobilizing assets prior to the arrival of the storm to help citizens avoid this devastating storm.


President Participates in Conversation on Medicare  White House  , 29 Aug 2005.


Late Morning (exact time uncertain)  - The vital 17th Street Canal levee gives way, sending the water from Lake Pontchartrain into the city in a second, slower wave of flooding. A full day will pass before state or federal officials fully realize what is happening.


—John McQuaid, Katrina trapped city in double disasters , New Orleans Times-Picayune , 7 Sep 2005.


Eventually, engineers will find five separate places where concrete floodwalls gave way. They will still be debating and studying the causes of the failures two weeks after the storm.


—John McQuaid, Mystery surrounds floodwall breaches; Could a structural flaw be to blame ? New Orleans Times-Picayune , 13 Sep 2005.


About 11 a.m. (exact time uncertain) - Roughly five hours after Katrina strikes the coast, FEMA director Michael Brown sends a memo – later obtained and made public by The Associated Press – requesting an additional 1,000 rescue workers from the Department of Homeland Security within 48 hours and 2,000 more within seven days. It is addressed to his boss, Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security. Brown refers to Katrina as this near catastrophic event (our emphasis.) He proposes sending the workers first for training in Georgia or Florida, then to the disaster area when conditions are safe. Among the duties of the workers, Brown proposes, is to convey a positive image of disaster operations to government officials, community organizations and the general public. (Emphasis added.)


—Michael D. Brown, Memorandum to Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security , 29 Aug 2005.


Later Brown will say FEMA itself has only 2,600 employees nationwide, and normally relies on state workers, the National Guard, private contractors and other federal agencies during disaster relief operations.


—David D. Kirkpatrick and Scott Shane, Ex-FEMA Chief Tells of Frustration and Chaos , New York Times, 15 Sep 2005: A1.


4:40 p.m.  - Bush appears in Rancho Cucamonga, California for another Medicare event. He again devotes a few words to Katrina: It's a storm now that is moving through, and now it's the time for governments to help people get their feet on the ground. . . . For those of you who are concerned about whether or not we're prepared to help, don't be. We are. We're in place. We've got equipment in place, supplies in place. And once the -- once we're able to assess the damage, we'll be able to move in and help those good folks in the affected areas.


President Discusses Medicare, New Prescription Drug Benefits  ,James L. Brulte Senior Center Rancho Cucamonga, California, 29 Aug 2005.


Time uncertain - Blanco calls Bush, saying, Mr. President, we need your help. We need everything you've got. Bush later assures her that help is on the way.


—James Carney et al, 4 Places Where the System Broke Down, Time , 11 September 2005.


—Evan Thomas, How Bush Blew It, Newsweek , 19 September 2005.


Tuesday August 30, 2005 - 1 Day After Katrina


Dawn - Water has continued to rise overnight and is coursing through the city's central business district, still rising. Eventually, at least least 80 percent of New Orleans is under water. Reports of looting surface.


—John McQuaid, Katrina trapped city in double disasters , New Orleans Times-Picayune , 7 Sep 2005.


11:04 a.m.  - In San Diego, California, Bush delivers a 31-minute speech marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. Of Katrina, he says, we're beginning to move in the help that people need.


President Commemorates 60th Anniversary of V-J Day Naval Air Station North Island San Diego, California 30 Aug 2005.


Immediately after the speech, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tells reporters that Bush will return to Crawford, then cut short his Texas stay and go to Washington. McClellan says, This is one of the most devastating storms in our nation's history. I think that's becoming clear to everyone. The devastation is enormous.


Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan , Naval Air Station North Island San Diego, California, 30 Aug 2005.


3 p.m. - With water still pouring into the city, officials report that the Army Corps of Engineers has surveyed the damage to levees and will soon attempt repair. 


At a Baton Rouge briefing, Sen. Mary Landrieu reports that most of the roads and highways are impassable, and water is still coming into the city of New Orleans. The water is up to the rooftops in St. Bernard and Plaquemine. We think there may be only one major way into the city right now and it has to be used for emergency personnel to get food and water and rescue equipment to people who are in desperate need.


But even now, federal and state officials alike seem unaware of the full extent of the unfolding disaster.


FEMA's coordinator William Lokey says of the still-rising water:



FEMA's Bill Lokey: In the metropolitan area in general, in the huge majority of areas, it's not rising at all. It's the same or it may be lowering slightly. In some parts of New Orleans, because of the 17th Street breach, it may be rising and that seemed to be the case in parts of downtown.


I don't want to alarm everybody that, you know, New Orleans is filling up like a bowl. That's just not happening.


None of the state officials present at the press conference correct Lokey's mistaken remark. And Blanco seems puzzled when a reporter asks the governor about the water pollution that will later emerge as a major public health risk:



Q: Does the water that's downtown -- does this represent what everyone feared before the hurricane would come, that you would have this toxic soup that has overrun the city?


Blanco: It didn't -- I wouldn't think it would be toxic soup right now. I think it's just water from the lake, water from the canals. It's, you know, water.


Q: Well, something could be underneath that water.


Blanco: Pardon?


The Situation Room; Hurricane Katrina Aftermath ; Rescue Efforts and Assessing the Damage, Transcript, CNN,  30 Aug 2005.


Wednesday August 31, 2005 - 2 Days After


Morning - Bush, still in Crawford, participates in a half-hour video conference on Katrina with Vice President Cheney (who is in Wyoming) and top aides. Later, he boards Air Force One and flies over New Orleans on his way back to Washington. His press secretary tells reporters: The President, when we were passing over that part of New Orleans, said, 'It's devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating on the ground.'


Press Gaggle with Scott McClellan Aboard Air Force One, En Route Andrews Air Force Base, MD,  31 Aug 2005.


Looting intensifies in New Orleans.  Nagin orders most of the police to abandon search and rescue missions for survivors and focus on packs of looters who are becoming increasingly violent.  The AP reported, Police officers were asking residents to give up any guns they had before they boarded buses and trucks because police desperately needed the firepower.


Mayor: Katrina may have killed thousands , Associated Press , 31 Aug 2005


Late Afternoon  - Bush, back at the White House, holds a cabinet meeting on Katrina and speaks for nine minutes in the Rose Garden to outline federal relief efforts. He says FEMA has moved 25 search and rescue teams into the area. As for those stranded at the Superdome, Buses are on the way to take those people from New Orleans to Houston, the President says.


President Outlines Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts , The Rose Garden, 31 Aug 2005.


Thursday September 1, 2005 - 3 Days After


7 a.m. - Bush says I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. His remark comes in a live interview on ABC's Good Morning America :



Bush: I want people to know there's a lot of help coming. I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. These levees got breached and as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will.


—“Good Morning America,” Transcript, ABC News, 1 September 2005.


Time Uncertain - Red Cross President Marsha Evans asks permission to enter the city with relief supplies, but Louisiana state officials deny permission.


—Red Cross: State rebuffed relief efforts: Aid organization never got into New Orleans, officials say   CNN.com , 9 Sep 2005.


Thirty-thousand National Guard Troops from across the country are ordered to report to the Gulf Coast, but many do not arrive for several days.


More Navy Ships, National Guard troops head to the Gulf Coast , Associated Press, 1 Sep 2005.


The first buses arrive at the Superdome to take evacuees to the Astrodome in Houston, 355 miles away. But the evacuation goes slowly and will take several days.


—Evan Thomas, The Lost City, Newsweek , 12 September 2005.


Associated Press photographer Phil Coale makes an aerial shot of scores of school buses sitting unused in a flooded New Orleans lot. Many will later question why city officials did not use these busses to evacuate residents who lacked transportation prior to the hurricane, or at least move them to higher ground for use later.


—AP Photo/Phil Coale Aerial view of flooded school busses, Yahoo News, 1 Sep 2005.


Evening - In a special report that is typical of the picture that television is conveying to the world, CNN Correspondent Adaora Udoji reports: Three days after Hurricane Katrina, and the situation is getting more desperate by the minute. Thousands are still stranded in misery.  . . . They are marching in search of food, water and relief. They're surrounded by a crumbling city and dead bodies. Infants have no formula, the children no food, nothing for adults, no medical help. They're burning with frustration, and sure they have been forgotten.


And CNN's Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, reports live from Charity hospital in New Orleans: It doesn't appear to be safe now, but it seems that a sniper standing atop one of the buildings just above us here and firing down at patients and doctors as they were trying to be evacuated, unbelievable. It just boggles my mind, actually.


—Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, Special Edition: Hurricane Katrina  CNN Transcripts  , 1 Sept 2005.


Brown says FEMA officials were unaware for days that – besides the hurricane victims stranded in the Superdome – thousands more had taken refuge in the New Orleans Convention Center nearby. Speaking from Baton Rouge in a live interview with CNN's Paula Zahn, he says:



Brown : And so, this -- this catastrophic disaster continues to grow. I will tell you this, though. Every person in that Convention Center, we just learned about that today . And so, I have directed that we have all available resources to get to that Convention Center to make certain that they have the food and water, the medical care that they need...
Q: Sir, you aren't telling me...
Brown : ... and that we take care of those bodies that are there.  . . .
Q: Sir, you aren't just telling me you just learned that the folks at the Convention Center didn't have food and water until today, are you? You had no idea they were completely cut off?
Brown: Paula, the federal government did not even know about the Convention Center people until today.


—Paula Zahn Now, Desperation in New Orleans; Interview With FEMA Director Mike Brown,  Transcript , 1 Sep 2005.


Later, Brown will say he was wrong and that FEMA actually knew about the victims at the Convention Center 24 hours earlier but was unable to reach them until Thursday.


—David D. Kirkpatrick and Scott Shane, Ex-FEMA Chief Tells of Frustration and Chaos, New York Times 15 Sep 2005: A1


Evening - Nagin delivers a rambling diatribe in an interview with local radio station WWL-AM, blaming Bush and Blanco for doing too little:



Nagin : I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man.  . .
I've got 15,000 to 20,000 people over at the convention center. It's bursting at the seams. The poor people in Plaquemines Parish. ... We don't have anything, and we're sharing with our brothers in Plaquemines Parish.
It's awful down here, man.
. . . Don't tell me 40,000 people are coming here. They're not here. It's too doggone late. Now get off your asses and do something , and let's fix the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country.


—Mayor to feds: 'Get off your asses,' Transcript of radio interview with New Orleans' Nagin, CNN.com, 2 Sep 2005.


Friday September 2, 2005 - 4 Days After


The Red Cross renews its request to enter the city with relief supplies. We had adequate supplies, the people and the vehicles, Red Cross official Vic Howell would later recall. Louisiana officials say they needed 24 hours to provide an escort and prepare for the Red Cross's arrival. However, 24 hours later, a large-scale evacuation is underway and the Red Cross relief effort never reaches New Orleans.


—Red Cross: State rebuffed relief efforts: Aid organization never got into New Orleans, officials say   CNN.com , 9 Sep 2005.


8:02 a.m. - Bush leaves the White House to tour the hurricane area. He says, A lot of people are working hard to help those who have been affected, and I want to thank the people for their efforts. The results are not acceptable .


—President Heads to Hurricane Katrina Affected Areas,  The South Lawn , 2 Sep 2005.


10:35 am - Bush, arriving in Alabama to tour the disaster area, says of the FEMA director at a live news conference: Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA director is working 24 -- (applause) -- they're working 24 hours a day. Again, my attitude is, if it's not going exactly right, we're going to make it go exactly right. If there's problems, we're going to address the problems.


—President Arrives in Alabama, Briefed on Hurricane Katrina,  Mobile Regional Airport Mobile , Alabama 2 Sep 2005.


Noon - A convoy of military trucks drives through floodwaters to the convention center, the first supplies of water and food to reach victims who have waited for days. Thousands of armed National Guardsmen carrying weapons stream into the city to help restore order. Commanding is Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, a cigar-chomping Louisiana native who soon wins praise for his decisive style of action.


—Allen G. Breed, National Guardsmen Arrive in New Orleans, The Associated Press, 2 Sep 2005.


5:01p.m. - Bush speaks at New Orleans airport, saying, I know the people of this part of the world are suffering, and I want them to know that there's a flow of progress. We're making progress.


—President Remarks on Hurricane Recovery Efforts , Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport 2 Sep 2005.



Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 5 Days After


10:06 am - Bush announces he is ordering additional active duty forces to the Gulf coast. The enormity of the task requires more resources, he says in his Saturday radio address. In America we do not abandon our fellow citizens in their hour of need. He says 4,000 active-duty troops are already in the area and 7,000 more will arrive in the next 72 hours. Those will add to some 21,000 National Guard troops already in the region.


President Addresses Nation , Discusses Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts, The Rose Garden , 3 Sep 2005.


Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 6 Days After


The President issues a proclamation ordering the US Flag to be flown at half-staff at all federal building until Sept. 20 as a mark of respect for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.


Proclamation by the President: Honoring the Memory of the Victims of Hurricane Katrina, 4 Sep 2005.


Monday September 5, 2005 - One Week After


U.S. Army Corps of Engineers repair the levee breach on the 17th Street Canal and begin to pump water from the city.


—Pumps begin to drain New Orleans.  CNN.com , 6 Sep 2005.



Tuesday September 6, 2005 - 8 Days After

FEMA asks reporters to refrain from taking pictures of the dead. Reuters quotes a FEMA spokeswoman as sending an email saying, The recovery of victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect and we have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media.


—Deborah Zabarenko,  Media groups say FEMA censors search for bodies , Reuters , 7 Sep 2005


Nagin orders police and law enforcement officials to remove everyone from the city who is not involved in recovery efforts.  Despite this order, many residents remain in New Orleans, refusing to leave.


—Cain Burdeau,  New Orleans Mayor orders Forced Evacuation , Associated Press , 7 Sep 2005.


Wednesday September 7, 2005 - 9 Days After


FEMA brings in Kenyon International Services from Houston to assist in recovering  bodies, many of which have been left in the open since the storm hit. A week later, state and federal officials will still be bickering over who is to pay the $119,000 daily expense of the outside mortuary specialists, and many bodies will still lie uncollected in the open and in drained buildings two weeks after the storm.


—Michelle Krupa, Louisiana hires firm to help recover bodies ; Blanco says FEMA moved too slowly, New Orleans Times-Picayune , 14 Sep 2005.


A bipartisan joint Congressional Committee is announced to investigate the response to Hurricane Katrina at all levels of government, as federal, state, and local officials continue to blame each other for the slow response in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.


—GOP leaders agree to joint Katrina hearings,   CNN.com , 8 Sep 2005.


Friday September 9, 2005 - 11 Days After


Chertoff removes Brown from his role in managing the Katrina relief effort, and puts  Coast Guard Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen in charge.


—Peter Baker,  FEMA Director Replaced as Head of Relief Effort , Washington Post , 10 Sep 2005:  A01.


Monday September 12, 2005 - Two Weeks After


Brown resigns as head of FEMA saying, it is important that I leave now to avoid further distraction from the ongoing mission of FEMA.


—Statement by Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness & Response and Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,   News Release , FEMA, 12 Sep 2005.


September 13, 2005


11:30 a.m. – Bush takes responsibility for the federal government’s failures while speaking at a press conference with Iraqi President Talabani.



Bush: Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong.


—“President Welcomes President Talabani of Iraq to the White House,” The East Room, news release , 13 Sep 2005.


Thursday, September 15, 2005


Brown, in an interview published in the New York Times , says the governor and her staff had failed to organize a coherent state effort in the days after the hurricane, and that his field officers in the city were reporting an out of control situation to his superiors. He says he asked state officials, What do you need? Help me help you. . . . The response was like, 'Let us find out,' and then I never received specific requests for specific things that needed doing. A spokesman for the governor said, That is just totally inaccurate.


—David D. Kirkpatrick and Scott Shane, Ex-FEMA Chief Tells of Frustration and Chaos , New York Times 15 Sep 2005: A1


8:02 p.m. - Bush says, in a prime-time, televised speech from New Orleans, that the system, at every level of government, was not well-coordinated, and was overwhelmed in the first few days. He says the military should have a greater role in reacting to future large disasters.  Congress is preparing an investigation, and I will work with members of both parties to make sure this effort is thorough. He promises massive aid, tax breaks, and loan guarantees to aid rebuilding, saying that there is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.


—President Discusses Hurricane Relief in Address to the Nation, Jackson Square,  New Orleans, Louisiana 15 Sep 2005.


You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything.  It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap.  Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
Ridiculous, isn't it? Mr. Murtha
in his little toe than Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld combined will EVER have. But, hey, let the propaganda catapulting and swiftboating begin..that's all they can do but to smear a marine who served his country for 37 years, was awarded 2 purple hearts and a bronze star, retired as a colonel. I guess support for veterans stops if they disagree with you. What a bunch of lying hypocrites.
I agree with you, especially about Murtha...sm
I would have taken the part about Murtha out except I didn't want to only post part of the article.

It just think it is a GOOD thing that anchors are *finally* speaking out that the Iraqi war was not a smart thing to get in to. That's why I posted this.
That was the first I knew about Murtha except

before the election.


I agree with your statement on the others. I think Pelosi is too pushy and I wonder why she is in such a hurry to pass all O's stuff so quick. I often wonder what kind of background she has.


I watched a program the other night (don't ask who, I'm always flipping channels) and they had a perfect answer for where Gitmo prisoners should go....to Alcatraz, right in Pelosi's backyard and she can then look through those viewers that look out over the bay and watch the prisoners herself. I thought it was hillarious.


Murtha simply wants it investigated, one way or the other...sm
Although I doubt the soldiers have corrupt intent *if* there is any merit in the claims.
Coulter says Murtha should be killed.

It's apparently acceptable to advocate assassination as long as you're a darling of the Republican party.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689569


Latest Ann Coulter Outrage: On Fragging John Murtha

By E&P Staff

Published: June 15, 2006 11:55 PM ET


NEW YORK With the brief debate over Iraq in Congress producing such acrimony this week that one congressman suggested opponents of the war support al-Qaeda, it should come as no surprise that columnist and author Ann Coulter would top them all.

In an email interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News web site, Coulter was asked, among other things, to offer short comments on several individuals. After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the World's most intensely private exhibitionist, she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'

Fragging, which became a well-known expression --and occurence -- during the Vietnam war, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.

This was so over the top that conservative Mike Krempasky at RedState.org posted, I've said before that's its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well - once again, Ann proves us right. He went on to call her fragging remark absolutely disgusting....there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter.

Coulter's column is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate. On its home page, Universal hails her witty, no-holds-barred commentaries on the Washington scene. She tackles the hot issues with fervor and stands up for the things that she believes in.




E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)


Can we say ABSCAM and Jack Murtha? sm
He didn't take the bribe but put it on a back table for later.  Oh, well, no big deal.
Murtha has too much controversy surrounding him...sm
To be taken serious. The dems who voted for Hoyer went with the less controversial candidate and I agree with that. I could see the Murtha witch hunt coming, so I am glad Hoyer go the vote. The conversation America needs to be having is not about a 1980 meeting, but what is going on right now.


John Murtha to appear on Meet the Press today!

I set my VCR!


War Hero Murtha wouldn't join military now




US Rep. Murtha says he wouldn't join military now

03 Jan 2006 01:00:32 GMT
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.

A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Murtha told ABC News' Nightline program that Iraq absolutely was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.

Would you join (the military) today?, he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.

No, replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues.

And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve', the interviewer continued.

Exactly right, said Murtha, who drew White House ire in November after becoming the first ranking Democrat to push for a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as it could be done safely.

At the time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan equated Murtha's position with surrendering to terrorists.

Since then, Bush has decried the defeatism of some of his political rivals. In an unusually direct appeal, he urged Americans on Dec. 18 not to give in to despair over Iraq, insisting that we are winning despite a tougher-than-expected fight.

Murtha did not respond directly when asked whether a lack of combat experience might have affected the decision-making of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their former top deputies.

Let me tell you, war is a nasty business. It sears the soul, he said, choking up. And it made a difference. The shadow of those killings stay with you the rest of your life.

Asked for comment, a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. John Skinner, said: We have an all-volunteer military. People are free to choose whether they serve or not.

Our freedom of speech in this country allows all of us the opportunity to voice an opinion. It's one of our great strengths as a nation, he added in an e-mailed reply.

The White House had no immediate comment.
src=http://www.alertnet.org/images/spacer.gif






AlertNet news is provided by


Murtha's predictions on the Republican exit strategy.

I'm past convinced but time will tell just how politically motivated *Iraqi freedom* is to this administration.  How much you want to bet nobody gets it? 


I agree with Murtha, now that we have relieved Iraq of the Saddam regime the mission sould be getting our soldiers home safely.  But its not that easy with the new wave of terrorism that replaced Saddam's regime as a result of the war.


I still say though we have our own battles to fight at home and need to accelerate training what Iraqi men are willing to fight for democracy and do what we can to restore their infrastructure and get out.  With the right enthusiasm (or upcoming congress elections) it can be done.  ~Democrat


------------------------


Murtha Details His Exit Strategy

Jan. 13, 2006


CBS) Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., believes the vast majority of U.S. troops in Iraq will be out by the end of the year and maybe even sooner. In his boldest words yet on the subject, the outspoken critic of the war predicts the withdrawal and tells 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace why he thinks the Bush administration will do it

“I think the vast majority will be out by the end of the year and I’m hopeful it will be sooner than that,” Murtha tells Wallace, this Sunday, Jan. 15, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

“You’re going to see a plan for withdrawal,” says Murtha. He believes Congress will pass it because of mounting pressure from constituents tired of the war that could affect the upcoming midterm elections.

The political situation will force President Bush to accede to Congress, he says. “I think the political people who give [the president] advice will say to him, ‘You don’t want a democratic Congress. You want to keep a Republican majority, and the only way you’re going to keep it is by reducing substantially the troops in Iraq,’” Murtha says.

The president has said publicly that any decision regarding Iraq would be based on the situation there and not on Washington politics.

Murtha rejects the president’s argument that the war on terror is being fought in Iraq. “The insurgents are Iraqis – 93 percent of the insurgents are Iraqis. A very small percentage are foreign fighters….Once we’re out of there, [Iraqis] will eliminate [foreign fighters],” says Murtha.

“[President Bush] is trying to fight this war with rhetoric. Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is,” he says. “We’re inciting terrorism there....We’re destabilizing the area by being over there because we’re the targets,” Murtha says.

When Wallace challenges him by saying, “General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says your comments are damaging recruiting and hurting the troops,” Murtha responds by saying it’s the military’s own fault. “[Troops] are rotated [into Iraq] four and five times. They have no clear mission,” says Murtha. “One of the problems they have with recruitment is [that] they continually say how well things are going and the troops on the ground know better.”

President Bush has said there are only two choices in Iraq: victory and defeat. And he has implied that Murtha is a defeatist. Murtha, of course, disputes that.

There have been 13 servicemen from his Congressional district killed in Iraq. Could the families of those dead be offended? Wallace asks.

“Well, I hope [those families] understand,” says the Vietnam combat veteran. “It’s my job, my responsibility, to speak out when I disagree with the policy of the president of the United States,” says Murtha. “All of us want this president to succeed…I feel a mission here, with my experience, that I have to help the president find a way out of this thing.”


Iraqi Soldiers Speak Out in Favor of Murtha

On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).


The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.

But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.


Here are some excerpts.


John Brumes, Infantry Sgt. US Army:


Everything that the Bush Adminstration told us about that mission in Iraq is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, I'd like to say ... I came home to no job, no health insurance. Until we take care of this war, we can't take care of the problems that matter like health care.

I've witnessed both ends... Congressman Murtha, I implore you to keep doing what you're doing.



John Powers, Capt. 1st Armored Division, served 12 months in Iraq:


The thing that hits me the most is the accountability. ... Where is the accountability for those men [who took us to war], as well as where is the accountability for Paul Bremmer, who misplaced millions of dollars and claims to keep accountability in the war zone?... I know that if we lost $500 we would be court marshaled. So where is the accountability for this leadership?

Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:


My question is also about accountability. The soldiers that you see, Congressman Murtha, at the hospitals... those are my friends. After coming back, being a veteran, my question is why? Why did we go to this war, why the hell did it happen, why are we in this condition. A lot of soldiers are debating whether this war was fraudulent to begin with. And there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. A lot of Americans now are debating the fact over whether or not the war was fraudulent in the first place. How come there hasn't been an investigation on the fraudulent lead up to the war by this Administration?

C-SPAN has the full broadcast here.



 

Murtha Attacked by the Right for Quote Falsely Attributed to Him.

Imagine that.  I'm shocked. 


Murtha Attacked by the Right For Quote Falsely Attributed to Him


UPDATE: Multiple ThinkProgress readers report that Gail Bulfin of the Sun-Sentinel admits the paper’s report was inaccurate and says a correction will be printed tomorrow.


The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported on Sunday that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) had claimed that the United States is the greatest threat to peace in the world:



American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.


Though the Sun-Sentinel never provided a direct quote of Murtha, the story was featured on the Drudge Report and Murtha immediately came under attack from conservative pundits:



Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, 6/26:


Murtha has lost all perspective and did months ago, but his message is firmly entrenched in America’s far-left precincts. … [T]hat kind of extreme thinking, based on little evidence, by the way, is putting all Americans in danger.


Tucker Carlson, MSNBC, 6/26:


What is really going on here, and you know it as well as I, is that Jack Murtha has been intoxicated by the amount of publicity that he has gotten from his anti-war crusade, and he has become progressively more unreasonable, progressively more left-wing as the days go on, and he is in the thrall of people who, I think, have hostility towards the United States.


Newt Gingrich, Fox News, 6/26:


For an American congressman to say that is beyond any acceptable behavior, and I would hope the Congress would move to censure him.


One problem: Murtha apparently never said anything of the sort. What he did was cite a Pew poll released two weeks ago showing that people around the world, including in closely-allied countries like Great Britain, believe the U.S. is the greatest threat to peace.


A statement released by Murtha’s office today quotes an email from Melissa Sanchez of the Miami Herald, who also attended the speech, saying of the purported Murtha “quote”: “That was in reference to international polls. It was not so much his own conjecture, but a conclusion drawn from polls in various countries.” ThinkProgress confirmed with Murtha’s office that the email accurately reflects the views of reporters at the Miami Herald.


Email the Sun-Sentinel’s reader liason Gail Bulfin — gbulfin@sun-sentinel.com — and ask that the paper print a retraction. See update above.



 


Murtha, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Al Franken!, ughh!.
nm
Observer

Shame on you for touting your song.  Why be proud to be a racist?  I grew up in a semi-southern town where they had one of the last lynchings of multiple black males in the U.S.  There was a PBS special done on this town if you have any interest.  It makes me sickened and ashamed, now proud.

I could cite the legion problems still present in today's south - poor counties/states in the US, worst school performance, corruption, civil rights issues.....but I won't.

Below is exactly why the south NEEDS a greater range of folks with differing philosophies/political persuasion.  This is an excerpt by a musical analyst:


The lines in "Sweet Home Alabama" are a direct response to Young's anti-racist, anti-cross burning "Southern Man" and "Alabama" songs. Lynyrd Skynyrd's comeback was intended to mean, essentially, "Thank you for your opinion Neil, now leave us alone."

It is this perceived "attitude" which has led to Lynyrd Skynyrd earning a reputation as a "racist" band. Not withstanding the fact that the band often performed with a Confederate flag as a backdrop

Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama" meaning is often interpreted as being "racist" because of the the lyrics reference "In Birmingham [where a black church was bombed killing 4 young girls] they love the governor [George Wallace]" who was a segrationist.

Furthermore, Lynyrd Skynyrd sang "Now Watergate does not bother me". Sadly, it would seem not only were Lynard Skynard untroubled by racism but were not terribly concerned by corruption at the highest levels of the U.S. government.


Thank you Dr. Observer. sm
However, I have to believe your personal party affilitation is having way too much sway on your "diagnosis."   There is plenty of dysfunction on here.  I don't particularly like being called a liar.  I defend myself and my country and a president I happen to admire.  That irritates you into a frenzy and you take the logical calm approach to insult me with your lame diagnosis!  If you don't like my posts, DON'T READ THEM. How hard is that?  I ask you.
Hey observer
do 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage? Would you explain why God would take the life if life begins in utero?
Observer...sm
I suggest you don't put your faith in politics. I know that NOTHING will happen to me or my family for generations to come unless it is the will of the Lord. Forgive my optimism, but I will not have you sign my death certificate prematurily. If we are so weak that we fear going out in crowds, then we need to concentrate our efforts on securing our own country more so than Iraq.

Politically, I have NEVER agreed with invading Iraq, ever. I believed the head insepctor when he said there were no WMDs. I didn't see then and I don't see now how that was a logical response to 9-11. Go back and check it, Congress did not vote for going into Iraq specifically, but they did give Bush autonomy to make that decision should it become a necessary option. Bad decision. I disagree with Kerry, Hillary and all the other democrats who cosigned on that, but everyone's adrenalin was pumping after 9-11 and who wanted to look *soft on terror.* I think averting attention from bin Laden to Sadaam was the biggest spin of the century.

So now we're in Iraq, and the only news we get back from over there are death counts, bombings, etc. What is the progress? Seriously, what is the progress? Are we winning the minds and hearts of the Iraqis like we won the mind and heart of bin Laden when we helped him in Afghanistan? I have said before in order to win the war in Iraq we need to go in strong and hit them with all we got. I would not like it, but I would support that. I think that is the only way our soldiers can walk out of that country with the mission accomplished. More innocents will die, more US soldiers will die, but that is the only way to WIN. If we are not in it to win, then we should come home. What we are doing now is policing and I don't agree with that. The US taxpayers are not responsible for Iraqi citizens' safety. Tell that to people who are terrorized by criminals in their own homes right here in the US daily.

If we leave Iraq it will be a defeat for the US, but the battle was not ours to begin with. It is not easy, but we have a choice to make. I want to believe that most or ALL Iraqis will stand up and hold the US flag high and thank us for our sacrifice one day, but I don't believe in fairy tales. We should be careful, because we could be training the next group of 9-11 attackers.
Observer...
you have articulated excellently a lot of my concerns about a Democratic administration. One of my greatest frustrations with the war is that so many do not seem to understand that, in many ways, to this enemy (radical Islamist terrorists), appearance is everything.

In many ways they seem to me to be like Klingons - emboldened by and contemptuous of any show of weakness, even if it would seem superficially to be to their advantage.

If we are to succeed against this enemy, it seems to me that we must embrace two characteristics which have become somewhat foreign to the political process - strength and honor. We must be willing to do what we say we will do (i.e., stay in Iraq until they establish a stable government, as we promised them we would do) and enforce our own demands through whatever force is necessary. To do otherwise merely encourages the Jihadists to ongoing violence.

Unfortunately, I doubt in this era that any administration will have the fortitude for such action, particularly in the face of unrelenting media coverage of every setback. Like you, I have certainly seen nothing from any Democratic spokesperson save possibly Joe Lieberman to indicate to me any level of understanding of the enemy we face or the gravity of the consequences of failure.
It's all about them, Observer.
It has always been all about them.  The leftists are starting to write articles now and make public appearances, admitting that they don't care about the troops at all.  They don't even have much invested in peace. They want radical change by radical means and they do not care who gets hurt in the process.  In the civil rights days, protest really did effect needed change.  But it hasn't since then and is a tool of the left to get what they want.  Imagine, Jane Fonda protesting at The Wall.  How much more of a slap in the face to our veterans can you get.  I am dumbfounded at this insult to our veterans.  I know many of them will be there to protest HER being there and I wish I were one of them.
You are right, Observer. sm
These people are not what they seem.  See link below for the real story. 
Oh please, Observer.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth.  I never said I supported partial-birth abortions.  I definitely do not and never have.  I'm talking about abortions that occur before 3 months gestational age.  Do you really think that fetus can register pain at that point?  Just because YOUR religion tells you that babies have a soul before they're born does not make it so - it's just a theory from your religion's mythology.  It just drives me nuts when people act like their religion has the only correct answers and try to get others to believe it as well.


I think it is well known that many children are suffering in the US, and you are asking to put thousands (millions?) more kids into an already strained system.  You must remember all of our discussions about the SCHIP program. Although many Republicans supported the bill, what the bill was ultimately missing was support from Republicans - the party that is almost exclusively pro-life yet didn't seem to mind children from lower-middle income families suffering without healthcare.  Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. (And yes, I know you think the bill was flawed, blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains kids are going without healthcare due to that decision).


You want state-to-state decisions made, so what happens to the women whose state doesn't allow abortion?  What if she cannot afford to travel to a state where it is legal?  You ask why her life is more important?  What if she is a mother?  What if she dies and leaves her other chidren motherless? Her family and friends would be devastated, whereas a fetus in the womb does not have these connections with others yet, and I still maintain that a fetus that young is not even capable of feeling pain.  You have your opinion and your religious agenda, and that's your choice, but I don't think it is a smart choice to make abortions illegal, even in some states, as I truly believe women will have abortions regardless of legality.


Okay Observer...

it's Sunday, and I have a ton of work to do so I will try to make this brief.  First of all, I do not hate you - I just don't like to be told the same things over and over again about your beliefs when I already know where you stand on pretty much every issue that is brought up.  Some people may not have heard your views yet, and as I said, you certainly have the right to state them again and again, but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be annoyed by them.


As for hating George W. Bush.  I don't recall ever stating that, but I do think he is the most horrible president in the history of America and that he is destroying our nation and running us into an enormous deficit.  I personally do not like to argue with people who defend Bush simply because if nothing that has gone on over the last 7 years has convinced them that Bush is a horrible president, then obviously nothing I can say will either.


I also don't despise Christians.  I just get sick of many religions starting wars in the name of God and hating others (gays, children out of wedlock, etc.) because the bible tells them these things are against God so therefore many religious people think this hate is justified.  I know not all religious people are that hateful, and I actually have numerous friends who attend church regularly.  I just think it's kind of silly to say we have to live by what the bible says when it was written sooooo long ago and so much has changed.  It has also been interpreted so many times that who knows how much of the original content is even there or how it's been maneuvered.  I do think the bible has some great stories and inspirational quotes - I just get annoyed when people are always like "bible says!" like they can't possibly be wrong because the "bible says."  I actually believe in God and say prayers every night and teach my children about God too.  Church just isn't for me.  I live in the most beautiful state in America - I don't need to go sit in a church to get close to God!  Church has helped some of my friends who have lost loved ones, and for them it is a great thing.  So no, I don't hate Christians, but I am very sick of people killing others all over the world in the name of God - it's obviously the exact opposite of what God would want, and I will never understand their logic.  Wouldn't God just be happy they are worshipping him in their own way?


Hey Observer.....

Hey observer didn't you steal someone else's moniker also?


Thanks for posting, Observer
Also to those donating money, please be aware that the FEMA site list of receiving agencies includes mostly faith-based groups after the Red Cross, which is not necessarily a bad thing at all, except the Operation Blessings charity which is Pat Robertson's group. He must need another diamond mine in South Africa. You might want to skip that one.
Didn't say you did...it was Observer
who asked me. It went like this (I think) I asked if you and AG did anything besides rant on about the left. Did you have **legs** that  led you to do anything constructive with or for the stay the course people. Observer answered and said a bunch of stuff and then at the end, she said, what do you do??? where are your legs and mouth, so I answered her. That is how it went.
Just an Observation, Observer.....

Approximately 65% of the posts on this board are made by you.  I have read some of your posts, and in one of them you state that you come here, as a conservative, mainly to read and learn.  Are you certain that this is, in fact, your main purpose for coming here? It would seem from the sheer number of your posts, well over 50% of them being made by you here, that your purpose is not to read and learn, but rather to dominate and monopolize. Just an observation....


Please do not respond observer
Please do not respond to my posts *Observer*.  This is the liberal board and my posts are to my fellow democrat/liberals not to a ring winger.  I have nothing in common with you or right wingers, in fact, I cannot stomach right wingers, their ideas, what they have done to this country under their president.  Do youself a favor, go back to the conservative board or just skip over my posts and dont even read them.
On the contrary, Observer...
I am using my right of free speech to encourage others to disregard what I believe to be a forum that you created for your own personal agenda. This is not the forum for debate between conservative and liberal points of view. This posting site is not titled "political debate". Nor is it supposed to provide fodder for you to chew on.

I will speak for most of us in that we do not have a lot of time in the day to try to strike up a conversation amongst ourselves under the liberal forum, and when we to get time to log on, we don't want to have to sift through it, and we shouldn't have to.

If political debate is your preferred forum, perhaps you should email admin to add another posting site to accommodate it?

If you can accomplish this, I would gladly log on and argue point to point with you, but until then I would appreciate it if you stayed on the conservative posting.
Oh, Observer. I wondered where you'd been. sm
By the way, 'sm' means 'see message' (as opposed to 'nm' meaning 'no message'). Doesn't mean 'small message' as far as I know.

I agree with that last paragraph that kitty wrote. And I don't know where you're getting your statistics either, because poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of abortion remaining legal during the 1st trimester. Less (but still a majority) are in favor of abortion remaining legal up to the 2nd trimester, but not after that.

What I get from your posts is that when someone mentions 'abortion' you picture a healthy, full-term infant of 9 months' gestation, angelic and cooing happily in its crib, being viciously 'murdered.' Obviously, that is not what takes place when the pregnancy is under 3 months.

Me, I picture a cluster of cells that may or may not have gone on to become a person. After all, it's been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion ('miscarriage'), usually w/o a woman even knowing she was pregnant. And in fact, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages. That is just human biology. Are you weeping and wailing for all those 'children'?

I don't believe there is any suffering of the embryo in that case, or in a 1st (or even 2nd) trimester abortion, but there is *plenty* of suffering of the unwanted children that are already here on this Earth and being abused and neglected.

Make safe, medical abortions illegal, and that suffering will grow exponentially with more unwanted children, as well as more women who will die or be injured during an illegal, unsafe abortion - because abortions will still take place.

IMO, on both 'sides' of the issue, we should all be working towards reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies in the first place by demanding better education, better birth control methods, and better access and affordability to birth control.

Not a Palin observer as you obviously are
xx
From an objective observer.
nothing further to add to te nothingness of this post
Observer, did you say WONKY?? TeeHee

WE KNOW Observer. You have made your stance
.
Are Observer and Americangirl the same person?
You guys seem to have exactly the same extremely conservative viewpoint on just about everything, so I'm just wondering.
Observer, please ignore my posts
Observer, please do not respond to my posts as you are not going to get any answers to your questions from me. I do not read your posts.  They are con propaganda.  My posts are for fellow democrats.  You are wasting you time and energy reading and responding to my posts.
curious - if Observer is not liberal, why always here?

...speaking for myself, as an observer of your style...s/m
of supposed "debate" -- I can see why some people would prefer to avoid you.

It really adds nothing when you insult other posters like this. Why can't you accept an opinion, when everyone here who knows politics, is very aware of things that have happened over the past few months? Just because someone doesn't feel like typing out what has been discussed and debated here for the last few months does not make them less intellectual than you.

I rather admire them for refusing to be baited by your antagonistic style of posting.


Being an objective observer, the repugnants appear to be the most evil.
Defend the republican party all you want with your self-righteousness, but in the end the republican party will always be a party that represents big business and the rich.

You religious right wingers, rednecks who were undereducated and/or raised by a long line of redneckers will never get it so I won't even address you as your perception of reality is hopelessly distorted.

However, I will say that, anyone who makes under 250 grand a year and who votes for the republican tick is a fool.

This next presidential term will all be about taxes now that Georgie has sold out the country to foreign lands to pay for his war and cover his tax cuts to the wealthy, and someone's taxes are going to be raised and if you vote republican and earn less than 250 grand, it will be YOURS.

Funding under republicans will also be cut to social services and that means more crime, and if your town is like mine, police and fire departments are laying off due to budget cuts - hey, what an oxymoron, cutting police forces while fighting terrorism.

Republicans are not for the people whatever you say. They pander to the religious right and those high school drop out rednecks for the votes. Abortion is and always will happen as it has since the beginning of time and I don't think you will ever stop it from happening. You can try to romanticize reproduction all you want but in this world, as we watch babies starving, dying from curable disease and, even raped, it just doesn't hold water.

Republicans are as evil as greed is evil.

Your arguments are weak as always.
Each brown place in the link takes you to a different article that supports this article...nm
x
Observer is not a troll, but does debate. Posters here need to understand
this.  You are welcome to debate here or on the Conservatives board.  Debate IS allowed on both forums.  Again, there will be no additional forum strictly for debates as it can be conducted in a respectful fashion on either of our two political forums.
So does someone's comment at the end of the article, discredit the whole article??
Unbelievable. 
What is the source for this?
.
source?
What is your source for this info? As in, how do you know this is true - did you see it, hear or, what? I really want to know. Where can it be verified or disproved?
There never will be a source on this
nm