IRAQ,KATRINA AND THE POLITICS OF DENIAL

In both Iraq and Katrina we see the utter fasilure of the Bush Administration. It was unpreapred for a Natural Disaster and has created a huge human tragedy in Iraq. Just a thought: Seeing Biloxi and New Orleans people can imagine what normallife is for the Iraqis."

Really, this is so true. To all those who say life is now so hunky dory in Iraq, I suggest you go live there.

For those that say the response in Katrina was not a Federal Government failure, look at the 1993 GAO study that concluded, "Only DoD has the capability to deal with the aftermath of a major storm" (like Kartrina).

The privatisation of the Iraqi Oil Resources seems to be the most dominant feature of the new constitution.

Please provide the link to this. All that I have read is the opposite.

"To all those who say life is now so hunky dory in Iraq, I suggest you go live there."

It is interesting how news of Iraq get worse the further you are away from it. When I read news written by Iraqis or translated from Iraqi newspapers, the situation looks very good. In the western press, the situation looks unstable but improving. And when you talk to lefties, Iraq is a bloodbath.

Now, I actually grew up in a country occupied by the US. I did live in a place that changed from a fascist dictatorship into a democratic country because of an Anglo-American invasion and subsequent occupation.

I have seen pictures of mass graves in Germany and Iraq. And I know it takes years for a country to reform.

In fact, it seems there are many things I know and lefties don't.

Would I want to live in Iraq now? I would not.

But would I rather live there now than under Saddam? You bet I would.

ah yes the triumverent of Bush bashers.

Must be nice to be so perfect you 3.

I wonder how many people one has to murder so that one's regime becomes acceptable to the left?

I wonder how many people one has to murder so that one's regime becomes acceptable to the left?

Considering how many people the bush regime are murdering, I'd suggest you ask a rightie at what point does the number of dead, dying, maimed and generally destroyed lives it takes for them to realize that their war is not successful, and maybe it would have been better to let the inspectors finish the job before initiating a war. That would be the pertinent question, instead of the nonsensical question you posed.

For me the base question before committing our military is HOW did the Iraq War make America Safer? What was the danger to America from Iraq for us to go to war. Giving them the chance to choose a new government is Not an acceptable reason. If that was explained up front as our reason, Congress would NEVER have passed the war resolution! Before you Bushies tell me we are there now, lets make sure we NEVER use that reason again!

"Considering how many people the bush regime are murdering,"

26,000 in Iraq according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/, and that includes mostly the victims of terrorist attacks.

We on the right are sad that the Ba'athists and Islamofascists still kill that many people but we are happy that they now kill fewer than before the invasion.

That answer is easy. The complicated part is the question of how many people the Ba'athists would have to kill during American occupation so that said occupation becomes more acceptable than direct Ba'athist rule to lefties.

The inspectors had 12 years to finish the job. Saddam wouldn't let them. The inspectors have said so for ten years.

And to answer your question: If in 25 years more people will have died in the new Iraq, without renewed Ba'athist rule, than in the 25 years of Saddam's rule; the war would not have been successful. At the moment it doesn't look like the new Iraq kills more people than the old, even though representatives of the old Iraq are doing their best to change that.

So will you answer my question? Will the American occupation and the new Iraq be considered as acceptable and worthy of protection as the Saddam regime was if enough people are killed?

Or to rephrase the question, at what point would the number of dead, dying, maimed, and generally destroyed lives of the Saddam regime have warranted regime change?

We on the right believe the point was reached a long time ago. In fact, Margaret Thatcher thought the Kuwait war would have been a good chance to get rid of Saddam. What does a man have to do to become unacceptable to the left? Murdering millions and gassing people doesn't do that. It does seem as if you on the left find leaders more worthy of respect when they kill more people.

Look at how you attack Bush for causing a few thousands deaths (if we do count victims murdered by Ba'athists since the invasion as victims of Bush) and are still arguing that Saddam should have remained in power. For most Iraqis the sentence " let the inspectors finish the job" was equivalent to "allow the Ba'athists to slaughter more Shi'ites". If that is what you stand for, you will have popular support in the international community (because they respect violent murderers) but you will never improve the world.

But everyone of us fights for his own cause. You and I just seem to have different ideals.

I grew up in American-occupied West-Berlin. I enjoyed freedom (as much as the Russians would allow us to have in our city surrounded by East Germany) and am thoroughly sick of moustached dictators who gas people and attack neighbouring countries. You obviously prefer moustached dictators who gas people over American occupation. To each his own, I guess.

The hurricane has left a devastated landscape in Mark Twain country. Now that the task of Relief has begun the political questions will now be raised. So close to 9/11 comparisons with that event will be inevitable. 9/11 gave President Bush the much needed oppotunity to look presidential and strike heroic poses in front of the World Trade Center ruins 4 years back. Katrina on the other hand revealed the incomprable incompetence of FEMA whose Director, a college roommate of Allbaugh,has been caught by TIME Magazine for having fudged his CV. Republicans are notorious for rewarding high level agency appointments to party apparatichiks, in a style reminicent of the machine politics of the bad old days. An incompetent Director left the American people totally inprepared for the Hurrcane and all that the White House spokeman can say time and time again, We do not want to paly the blame game". This is nothing short of evasion of accountablity.

Once more you talk without knowing. Bush may have put Brown's name up. But that FEMA post REQUIRES SENATE APPROVAL! Your un-american attitude is getting boring.

"For me the base question before committing our military is HOW did the Iraq War make America Safer?"

Good point. Certainly a better point that worrying about Iraqi lives now that fewer are lost every month.

Ok, so how did the Iraq War make America safer. (I assume you don't care about safety for America's allies.)

1. For all the world knew Iraq could have still had chemical weapons. We don't know what happened to them in the last 12 years before the invasion, but they could have been in Saddam's hands still. How could it have affected America if Saddam had given such weapons to terrorists? We knew he supported terrorists in Israel; who could have guaranteed that he wouldn't support terrorists in America as well one day? We still don't know what happened to the chemical weapons Iraq had. The left claim that they don't exist but the left have also said that the Soviet Union was a paradise.

2. Iran is in the process of building nuclear weapons. Again, these weapons could be used against America. An American ally next to Iran and and American and British forces at the border are certainly a good defence against Iran if it comes to a conflict.

3. A democratic Iraq will eat into the terrorists' breeding ground. Success of a country embracing the evils of the west will show to other Arab (and Islamic) countries that the west is not so evil after all. It worked with western Europe against the Soviet Union.

" To all those who say life is now so hunky dory in Iraq, I suggest you go live there" - Dabe

Dabe....are you there? If not...then how do you know....and if you don't know, then maybe you should go live there so you would know first hand.

"For me the base question before committing our military is HOW did the Iraq War make America Safer?" - Col Gene

Gene...I would ask you, why not long after 9/11 occurred, did John Kerry practically demand that Bush "deal" with Saddam? Why do you jump all over Bush, when Kerry and MANY other congressmen were shouting out exactly what bush actually did do....

drmiler. Without Bush appointing Brown, there would not have been a Senate VOTE! This is Bush and his policy of giving jobs to people as pay back even though they are NOT QUALIFIED for the job! You continue to look like a FOOL when you defend Bush!

Yes, it turns out that Brown may have padded his resume, that is something Prs. Bush, Congress and especially Michael Brown will answer for. However, while FEMA did fail to adapt to the lack of preparation or legitimate response to the disaster in New Orleans, FEMA did a great job in Mississippi and Alabama. Are we really supposed to believe that all the competent people at FEMA ended up in the other two states, while Brown and all the incompetent people ended up in Louisiana?

There are a lot of lessons learned from this situation. Among them are, political appointees need to be better investigated by the White House, House and Senate; State and Local Emergency Management Officers need to be up to date on their emergency protocols; Mayors, County Leaders and Governors need to be better briefed on Emergency procedures; FEMA needs to be more active in their oversight responsibilities of the above. Above all, We the People need to be more prepared for emergency situations. We also need to be more informed on what our role in an emergency.

I have no polls to back me up, here, Gene, but I might be willing to wager on who in these forums would be most likely to win the election for Fool-in-Chief.

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler. Without Bush appointing Brown, there would not have been a Senate VOTE! This is Bush and his policy of giving jobs to people as pay back even though they are NOT QUALIFIED for the job! You continue to look like a FOOL when you defend Bush!

Big damn deal......Bush appointed Brown. Does that mean the senate automatically "has" to approve him?

And you continue to look like a fool while bashing him.

Really, this is so true. To all those who say life is now so hunky dory in Iraq, I suggest you go live there.

Just as I suggest the leftists who hate this war go fight for the "insurgents". If you take the time to read the good news out of Iraq instead of just what the liberal media tells you, you would see Iraq much differently.

drmiler. Without Bush appointing Brown, there would not have been a Senate VOTE!

As usual you avoid the question with blaming Bush. Yes Bush appointed him, but it's the job of Congress to approve him. I see the democrats have no problem investing a Supreme Court nominee, but this isn't important?

Every Bush appointee should not be voted on until ALL requested information is provided the Senate. Using that concept, NONE of the Bush appointees will EVER be approved by the Senate. Another option when all the information is not provided, is to vote NO! Lets start with Judge Roberts!

Every Bush appointee should not be voted on until ALL requested information is provided the Senate. Using that concept, NONE of the Bush appointees will EVER be approved by the Senate. Another option when all the information is not provided, is to vote NO! Lets start with Judge Roberts!

And why would that be? The admin has provided ALL documents requested. What I'd like to know is "why" the dems feel they need adoption and school records for his children. What do his kids have to do with his doing his job? And just an FYI, "ALL" of Brown's records were provided too. It didn't help did it?

The fact is that Bush has now fired the Director of FEMA or rather let him resign.At this very moment the city of New Orleans is being evacuated. It will be months before the city is habitable. Will the Federal or Local Govt bear the cost of rebuilding the devastated city. What about the communities that have been torn asunder. Will other states be asked to look afterr them till they can return home. Will 52 billion $ be enough to rebuild the three states. What about upgrading the leveexs to Hurricane 5 level. There are no answers. Only the Blame Game in DC.

There are no answers. Only the Blame Game in DC.

WRONG! The answers are there. "You" just choose not to see them.

Will the Federal or Local Govt bear the cost of rebuilding the devastated city

Yes, they will.

What about upgrading the leveexs to Hurricane 5 level.

It will be done. The question you "should" be asking is "WHY wasn't it done long before this"? Then they wouldn't have had this mess. And I do mean "years" ago. It has been known for quite some time (at least 30-40 years) that the leeves wouldn't survive even a full on hit from a catagory 3 let alone a 5! Why wasn't something done then? Where's everyones outrage on that? Naw, lets just bash Bush! After all it's his fault.

This type of whining makes me sick. Republicans are the "Get Rich" party, meaning they actually get off their butts and make something of themselves and don't start blaming others when tragedy strikes. Democrats are the "Gimme Gimme" Party. That mentality is what made all these crying poor people in a hurricane the kind of people that don't even know how to survive on their own because the government has done everything but wipe their rears for so long. Productive, resourceful citizens aren't the ones wailing and crying for help. they were prepared. They had water and food storage, they LISTENED when authorities told them to get the heck out of town. I haven't heard one person from the group of hurricane survivors say, "I should have been more prepared" ALl I've heard is how OTHER PEOPLE aren't doing enough. Those people didn't do a damn thing for themselves. "Be Prepared" isn't just a boyscout motto, it's common sense, and it can save your life. people need to take on some self-responsiblity for themselves. If you wait around for other people to save you, you might die before help arrives, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

This type of whining makes me sick. Republicans are the "Get Rich" party, meaning they actually get off their butts and make something of themselves and don't start blaming others when tragedy strikes. Democrats are the "Gimme Gimme" Party. That mentality is what made all these crying poor people in a hurricane the kind of people that don't even know how to survive on their own because the government has done everything but wipe their rears for so long. Productive, resourceful citizens aren't the ones wailing and crying for help. they were prepared. They had water and food storage, they LISTENED when authorities told them to get the heck out of town. I haven't heard one person from the group of hurricane survivors say, "I should have been more prepared" ALl I've heard is how OTHER PEOPLE aren't doing enough. Those people didn't do a damn thing for themselves. "Be Prepared" isn't just a boyscout motto, it's common sense, and it can save your life. people need to take on some self-responsiblity for themselves. If you wait around for other people to save you, you might die before help arrives, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

There is no question, the levees should have been rebuilt a long time ago. However, Bush is now president, and he like all the others was doing NOTHING. In fact he cut the funding to repair the levees below the levels under Clinton! Bush can spend $300 Billion in Iraq but almost nothing to rebuild New Orleans. Now the bill will be MUCH larger and the taxpayers can spend even more while continuing to dump Billions into a rat hole like Iraq!