Bush accepts responsibility for Federal response

[Amra]

Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about

And as I pointed out, neither do you.

Keep saying the same thing over and over. Pretty soon, everybody may believe you or at least not care anymore.

You have cornered the market on doing that.

You made the accusations, and I called you on it.

As I did with you.

I asked for an apology ... you bailed out.

I wondered if you would apologize for trying to mislead people here.

Pathetic ...

That is funny coming from you.



Last, I see no more use for this thread.

[llad12]

And as I pointed out, neither do you.

Those replies weren't addressed to you, but since you decided to butt-in:

I find it incredible that you so cavalierly dispensed with the journalism of the Washington Post. It's not like they are some tabloid newspaper. Their journalistic reputation has been top-notch for decades. Perhaps you have heard of Bob Woodward? If not, then maybe you saw All the President's Men. If that still doesn't ring any bells --- does Watergate sound one off?

When they report that there are big-time problems with FEMA, you better come up with something better than your paltry excuse of ignorance.

Same at ya ...

As I did with you.

Perhaps you should look at when FEMA was authorized to send emergency help before you go off on another rant, sir.

WhiteHouse

[caddad]

I read this whole thread. You should all appologize to me for that.

-D2netDad

[llad12]

I read this whole thread. You should all appologize to me for that.

-D2netDad

.........

[Module88]

Not suprising that you missed the point ... you conceded again.

Maybe it's just my bias, but every point I seem to "concede" is one that is irrelevant to the topic at hand (see below) or just not worth responding to because it's just an attempt to insult me.

I have owned weapons longer than you have been alive. I have told Smeggy that I wouldn't care if he owned 5000 shotguns, rifles, or hand guns.

Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about ...

What does this have to do with what I said again?

Yes, and I said that he was a more qualified person.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised since he thought "Brownie was doing a heckuva job" that someone told him to get rid of him.

Sure you did. But what happened to the part about Bush doing the right thing for a change? :uhhuh:

*Yawn*

Keep saying the same thing over and over. Pretty soon, everybody may believe you or at least not care anymore.

Hey, it worked for the Bush administration's propaganda ministry ... didn't it?

See these are the types of things I ignore. You claim them to be concessions. I say that it is irrelevant to the topic at hand and you're just spewing out propaganda.

Nah you just went three posts on it. Not worth your time now, however, since you were called out on your "assumption".

Oh gee, didn't you say that you admitted errors?

Am I to assume that was just another fabrication as well?

? I think Freet will thank me for holding back what I wanted to say in response, but avoided doing so. Trying to keep the maintence time down you know. I do acknowledge that I "conceded" your insult and decided not to respond to that particular part.

Well jeepers, Jesus may return to the Earth to smite the sinners and George W. Bush will take responsibility for starting an illegal, unjustifiied war that has killed thousand upon thousands of civilians.

Not likely ...

Judging by what I predict you voted on in this post, I think that even if he did that, you would call it "more empty words" and that he still caused the deaths of thousands of people and ignore the fact that he took responsibility for it. It's what you're doing here, after all.

You made the accusations, and I called you on it.

You want a vote from the crowd?

<Attention>

How many have heard me say that we went into Iraq to steal their oil?
Steal it ... not control it?

<thank you>

I asked for an apology ... you bailed out.

You've said both.

Pathetic ...

Are you going to call this is a concession if I ignore this too? :uhhuh:

[Module88]

Ya, the empty words are yours ...

I have given Bush my support to his space program ... to land a manned expedition on Mars.

Support for a bill or whatnot isn't synonymous to saying "he did a good job with ______."

I have credited his support of student loans.

Same thing. I haven't seen this from you, but if you can find yourself saying something like "Bush is doing a good job with this," then I might have to start doing some number crunching. But then, considering the amount of threads you've made about him, I don't think that will be necessary.

I supported drilling in the ANWR.

See the first part.

I have already stated my position on blame in this thread for your 95% BS

But keep typing your spin ... its so fun to read.

Spin? Did you say "Bush did a good job by appointing a qualified FEMA chief and by taking responsibility for the government" in this thread? Or, did you, as I predict you did, vote for "more empty words"?

Are you going to go by UN resolutions, as you previously stated, or are you just making it up as you go along?

I callled it an illegal war and that's what you wanted to debate.

The UN Charter does not allow for unprovoked aggression. The Security Council did not authorize any such action. When the Bush administration attempted to secure an additional resolution calling for military action, they withdrew it as they knew it would fail. The USA is a charter member of the United Nations.

Kofi Anna has subsequently deemed our actions illegal.

Care to continue or do wish to concede this point as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...lution_on_Iraq

Just the first half will do.

Depends on the situation with Pakistan ... wouldn't it?

Gotta luv your spin buddy

Quote me where I said that ...

Seems to me like you are trying to avoid answering the question. Let me refine it ONE more time :uhhuh:

"Say our intelligence sources find OBL in Pakistan. Do you support sending US troops in to get him or not, keeping in mind current and predicted relations with Pakistan in the present and the future.

Where you said that? You implied it. How? You are complaining that Bush started a war in a MUSLIM country and instead took his eyes off OBL. Yet, you are dodging me when I ask you if you would support invading another Muslim country if we knew where he was and we could get him. And, to make things fun, let's say that Pakistan doesn't want a few thousand US troops entering its borders. :uhhuh: So, what say you?

I read this whole thread. You should all appologize to me for that.

No fair. -_- I apologize for putting you through this torture. ><




Hmm, won't let me stick those long ones up in one post. O_o

[llad12]

Same thing. I haven't seen this from you, but if you can find yourself saying something like "Bush is doing a good job with this," then I might have to start doing some number crunching. But then, considering the amount of threads you've made about him, I don't think that will be necessary.

What was the issue here? Have you lost track in your ramblings?

I will repeat my answer, which I gave twice before, one last time:

How much blame? I would estimate the federal response around 50% Local 35%, State 15%. Someday we may have a intensive credible investigation ... and know more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...lution_on_Iraq

Just the first half will do.

*Yawn*

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally ...

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.




And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

BBC

If you are going to use Security Council Resolutions as your basis, then you must abide by their decisions.

There was no explicit authorization from the SC for the use of force against Iraq. The USA essentially acted in a unilateral fashion (*notwithstanding the "Coalition of the Willing" :uhhuh: )

You've said both.

Who Hoo ... you are finally showing your true colours now! Bright and sparkly ... for all the world to see.

Pure unadulterated lies ... from a self-centered, little man.

Respectfully speaking, you can put those remarks where the sun don't shine.


Our discussion is at an end.

[Ranger14]

I found it interesting as I was watching coverage of Rita today that the mayor of Galveston and Houston both commented that they couldn't even consider bringing in first responders or aid yet as it was pointless due to the the wind, high waters and the logistics of the storm. Both commented that it is an issue that has to be addressed after the fact and when the weather permits them safely to do so.

...and some want to blame FEMA, that the feds turned away help...during and the first few days after Katrina. Seems like that might have been the practical and wise decision based on what the local leaders in the new target areas are saying.

[Module88]

What was the issue here? Have you lost track in your ramblings?

I will repeat my answer, which I gave twice before, one last time:

How much blame? I would estimate the federal response around 50% Local 35%, State 15%. Someday we may have a intensive credible investigation ... and know more.

Oh sure, that's what you tell us. Unfortunately, your responses seem to disagree with that. See, if you actually placed that much blame on the groups, I wouldn't be arguing this point. But if you compare the amount of posts blaming Bush and blaming the other levels, you'll see a disproportionate amount of blame. Sure, a "all levels were responsible" were here and there. But if you look at the blame you put on the federal government, well. If others look at the blame you put on the federal government, I think they'll see the difference.

*Yawn*

BBC

If you are going to use Security Council Resolutions as your basis, then you must abide by their decisions.

There was no explicit authorization from the SC for the use of force against Iraq. The USA essentially acted in a unilateral fashion (*notwithstanding the "Coalition of the Willing" :uhhuh: )

"The final advice put forward by the attorney general relies on the justification that the original 678 resolution was "revived".

He dismissed the doubts he raised in item number 4 above about it being "difficult" to make this case.

He made the case very succinctly in nine brief paragraphs.

He said that "it is plain" that Iraq had not complied with its obligations under 1441 to cooperate and disarm.

Action was therefore allowed to restore "peace and security" which was the original intention of 678 (allowing the removal of Iraq from Kuwait) and which was only suspended by the ceasefire resolution 687.

As for a second resolution, Lord Goldsmith said: "Resolution 1441 would in terms (i.e., it would have used the exact words) have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended."

All 1441 needed, he claimed, was a discussion of Iraq's failures, not a further decision or resolution.

Of course, those who opposed the war said that a second resolution was needed precisely because the Council did not spell out what should happen.

For opponents, the word "consider" meant just that, a consideration of what to do.

That issue has never been legally resolved."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/p...ge/4482029.stm


In other words, argue all you want. Fact remains that legality is very disputable for both sides. Get off your high horse.

Who Hoo ... you are finally showing your true colours now! Bright and sparkly ... for all the world to see.

Pure unadulterated lies ... from a self-centered, little man.

Respectfully speaking, you can put those remarks where the sun don't shine.

Our discussion is at an end.

:lol: Oh the irony is killing me!!! You know, as thick and biased as you are, you are definitely amusing. To that, I give you props.