Can't support Bush anymore

[12volt_man]

Clearly, He should have implimented the DHS National Response Plan (NRP) that he himself comissioned by Presidential Directive HSPD-5 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html
and his administration, by signature of each cabnet level secretary, formally adopted as policy in December of Last year.

The NRP directs FEMA to act on its own authority to quickly provide assistance and conduct emergency operations following a major catastrophe, pre-empting state and local authorities if necessary. In the case of "catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, it calls for heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. Catastrophic events are defined as incidents that immediately outstrip the resources of state and local governments. FEMA viewed a major hurricane strike in New Orleans as a "catastrophic" event when it proposed studies to formulate a disaster relief plan. According to the NRP, "catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, call for heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. The response plan listed "guiding principles" to govern the response to these major events. The "Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response" make clear that, in these "catastrophic" cases, the federal government will operate independently to provide assistance, rather than simply supporting or cajoling state authorities:

• The primary mission is to save lives; protect critical infrastructure, property, and the environment; contain the event; and preserve national security.
• Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude.
• Identified Federal response resources will deploy and begin necessary operations as required to commence life-safety activities.
• Notification and full coordination with States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources. States are urged to notify and coordinate with local governments regarding a proactive Federal response.
• State and local governments are encouraged to conduct collaborative planning with the Federal Government as a part of "steady-state" preparedness for catastrophic incidents."

The NRP also says that, when responding to a catastrophic incident, the federal government should start emergency operations even in the absence of clear assessment of the situation. "A detailed and credible common operating picture may not be achievable for 24 to 48 hours (or longer) after the incident," the NRP's "Catastrophic Annex" states. "As a result, response activities must begin without the benefit of a detailed or complete situation and critical needs assessment."

Bush should have taken immediate steps to insure FEMA implimented the NRP.
He failed to do so, and as he rightly stated, he is fully responsible for that failure.

So, at what point did the governor of Louisiana ask for federal help?

 

[MORE85]

Moral Responsiblity Means More Than "legal Restraints"

 

[12volt_man]

Rich Ppl Make Alot Of Money When A Republican's In Charge.

Everybody makes a lot of money when conservative economic principles are put into place.

 

[12volt_man]

Moral Responsiblity Means More Than "legal Restraints"

OK. If he had broken the law, how likely do you believe it is that Democrats would have waved off calls for impeachment in favor of "moral responsibility"?

 

[Try2Live4God]

I don't regret voting for Bush. I admire his faith.....keep going and believe!

 

[christalee4]

I don't regret voting for Bush. I admire his faith.....keep going and believe!

I'm not questioning whether Bush personally is a religious person. I DO question that some in power in the Republican Party have used religion to incite more religious conservatives to vote for them. I don't think in general that the Republican party is any more "values"-oriented than the Democrats.

 

[12volt_man]

Trickle down economics unfairly hurt the small business owner and consumer.

Absolutely not true.

Trickle down economics allows small business to hire new workers and purchase new equipment, which, in turn, pumps money into the economy and allows the manufacturers of that new equipment to hire new employees.

In this administration, it's been proven by all the companies that have laid off employees here to open operations in India and Indonesia. The benefits of lowering taxes has not helped the working class.

I see. And how do you come to this conclusion?

Please don't speculate on my education.

If my doctors tells me that the knee bone is connected to the shoulder bone, I'm going to ask where he got his sheepskin.

He has added substantially to the federal payroll by federalizing the airport screeners. It hasn't been proven they are doing any better job now than when they were emplyed by the airports.

If this government was transparent and open, it would be a shining example, but instead, paranoia and good old boy politics are running rampant.

So far, you're the only one who appears to be paranoid, looking for a conspiracy behind every corner.

 

[whatbogsends]

So then, why are you not calling them to account?

I'm not calling the Republican congressmen to account, either. I already explained my position. But, since you either have poor reading comprehension or (more likely) ignored what i wrote already, i'll say it again.

It's one thing to make a false statement based on inaccurate information.

It's entirely another thing to act - especially when that action leads to the loss of life - based on a false statement stemming from inaccurate information. The burden of proof is significantly more substantial to make a declaration of war then it is when simply espousing rhetoric.

But these are the people who authorized him to go to war. Why do you blame President Bush, but ignore the people on your side of the aisle who gave him the authority to go?

They authorized the use of force contingent on a threat. They did not vote for war, per se.

Regardless, none of these people are on "my side of the aisle". I'm not a Democrat. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown to be corrupt. However, the current adminstration has shown itself not only to be corrupt, but to also be a threat to both Americans and the world - in different ways.

Let's start with the man your party nominated forvice president in 2000:

No, Joe Lieberman does not represent me, or "my party". I am not a democrat, as i've said multiple times already.

So then, why did so many Democrats say that Iraq was a threat and why are you not willing to hold them to the same standard that you hold President Bush to?

We've been through this already. You choose not to listen.

In other words, you refuse to hold Democrats to the same standard that you hold President Bush to.

Just as I said. Hypocrisy.

In other words, you haven't listened to a word i said, or responded to my arguments. You've simply re-iterated your false claims against me.

I do not see where in the Constitution the president of the United States is given this authority.

So, the President only has authority over subjects explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?

I don't know. What context did he say this in?

Tell you what. Why don't you answer my questions first. You know, the ones in my earlier reply that you answered without actually answering.

When exactly did "every democrat in Congress" urge Bush to invade Iraq?

What was the justification outside of WMD? Regime change? Regime change, in of itself, is an illegal reason for war according to international law.

What was the supporting evidence? The false Niger claims about Iraq trying to obtain Uranium? The "stockpiles" of WMD that Rumsfeld assured us "we know where they are"?

 

[parousia70]

So, at what point did the governor of Louisiana ask for federal help?

The NRP is clear. The DHS does not need to wait for the request from the state, indeed in such a catastrophic incident, the NRP DIRECTS the DHS/FEMA to ACT FIRST: (you quoted it, but it appears you didn't fully absorb it's contents, so here is is again)

The NRP directs FEMA to act on its own authority to quickly provide assistance and conduct emergency operations following a major catastrophe, pre-empting state and local authorities if necessary. In the case of "catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, it calls for heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. Catastrophic events are defined as incidents that immediately outstrip the resources of state and local governments. FEMA viewed a major hurricane strike in New Orleans as a "catastrophic" event when it proposed studies to formulate a disaster relief plan. According to the NRP, "catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, call for heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. The response plan listed "guiding principles" to govern the response to these major events. The "Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response" make clear that, in these "catastrophic" cases, the federal government will operate independently to provide assistance, rather than simply supporting or cajoling state authorities:

• The primary mission is to save lives; protect critical infrastructure, property, and the environment; contain the event; and preserve national security.
• Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude.
• Identified Federal response resources will deploy and begin necessary operations as required to commence life-safety activities.
• Notification and full coordination with States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources. States are urged to notify and coordinate with local governments regarding a proactive Federal response.
• State and local governments are encouraged to conduct collaborative planning with the Federal Government as a part of "steady-state" preparedness for catastrophic incidents."

Does any part of the above continue to be unclear to you?

 

[12volt_man]

I'm not calling the Republican congressmen to account, either.

That's not what I asked you.

It's one thing to make a false statement based on inaccurate information.

It's entirely another thing to act - especially when that action leads to the loss of life - based on a false statement stemming from inaccurate information. The burden of proof is significantly more substantial to make a declaration of war then it is when simply espousing rhetoric.

Right and, as I stated before, it's hypocritical of you to say that it's a lie when President Bush says it, because he sent the troops to war, but not a lie when Democrats said it, even though they're the ones who authorized the president to send the troops to war.

They authorized the use of force contingent on a threat. They did not vote for war, per se.

Again, why did so many of them say that Iraq was a threat?

No, Joe Lieberman does not represent me, or "my party". I am not a democrat, as i've said multiple times already.

But he did say this.

We've been through this already. You choose not to listen.

I did listen and I pointed out your hypocrisy.

In other words, you haven't listened to a word i said, or responded to my arguments. You've simply re-iterated your false claims against me.

No, I've demonstrated and you have admitted that you hold Democrats to a different standard than you hold this Republican president to.

So, the President only has authority over subjects explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?

Can you show me where in the Constitution it gives the president the authority to step outside of the parameters set for that office?

Tell you what. Why don't you answer my questions first. You know, the ones in my earlier reply that you answered without actually answering.

Tell you what. Why don't you quit avoiding my questions and accsuing me of ignoring you and answer the ones I asked you first.

 

[12volt_man]

Does any part of the above continue to be unclear to you?

No, it's clear as a bell.

Now, at what point did the governor of Louisiana ask the president to declare a state of emergency and dispatch FEMA?

 

[rosenherman]

Pres. Bush is under an absolute microscope, like all Presidents, but I feel that he has been under even more fire because of the way that he has rubbed the Democrats -- he is the epitome of a Republican on foreign affairs and has truly polarized the US in ways that it has not been in the entirety of my memory (admittedly, not very long).

I feel that there was no way that the Hurricane response could have been perfect and free of criticism; we have not had a major natural disaster like that in so long that we were bound to experience a lot of problems. Unfortunately, Pres. Bush was on watch, and he has to take the fire for it.

Overall, the President has done some great things -- in the midst of economic recession he fixed the economy (putting us back in the 4% growth rate number, which looked like a challenge with so many Democrats saying we were in recession); he liberated two nations and brought liberalized and lax policies to several other nations through aggressive diplomacy.

He is not the perfect President but I do not feel as if he has let us down, or disappointed us as a whole. I am happy with the way that I voted. I am sad to see someone give up the GOP and say this about our President.

I agree with you 100% on this jmverville.

I'm just sorry to see the press claim another victim. They can't stand that a man of his word is president and so the press convinces the non-thinkers that he is not a good leader.

 

[parousia70]

No, it's clear as a bell.

Now, at what point did the governor of Louisiana ask the president to declare a state of emergency and dispatch FEMA?

August 28th.

Here's the request:
http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf

But I'm unclear why you are stuck on her request, when the DHS NRP directs FEMA to act without waiting for such a request.... care to elaborate?

 

[UberLutheran]

I thought John Kerry was the worst of the worst of the absolutely worst possible candidates the Democrats could have picked for a Presidential candidate.

The "dream match" of John McCain versus Wesley Clark just wasn't to be, I guess.

(I don't do "I told you so" because I think it's incredibly bad form to kick a person when they're down, and even though I suspect I get on your nerves sometimes () I still like you and respect you.)

After many, many weeks of debating in my mind, I've come to a conclusion about our President: he stinks. Sorry to everyone that I voted for the guy. Politics aside, you just needed to watch Bush when he first hit the ground in Mississippi all 'ums' and 'uhs' to see the guy just isn't leadership material. But its not just that, that was just the straw that broke the camels back. His slander of the Minutemen, super-failure to do anything about our fuel crisis, endorsing renewal of the Patriot Act.......the list goes on. (Iraq isn't really that big a sore point for me, but thats for another topic.) As a Republican who voted for Bush, I feel obligated to continue to support the person I elected, but as a man, I have to call a spade a spade, swallow the pride and agree with what so many -even, God forgive me, Michael Moore-have said: Bush is the wrong man to be President. Now, I'll take all the 'I told you so's' from the Dems and the Left, I've made my bed and I will lie in it so fire away. Voting for Bush was a foolish move on my part, but I'd be even more of a fool if I kept supporting him. The writings on the wall with Bush, how ironic so many of the predominantly Chrisitian GOP can't read it. Just how far into hell are you people going to follow this guy?

BTW, taking down the Elephant icon. Posted this here instead of the GOP forums so non-Repubs could respond if they wanted too without worrying about being reported. I also encourage other Bush supporters to seriously re-think their position and ask themselves if they are just letting pride keep them hanging on. What's he doing thats so great, show me just one thing that he has done that is worthy of the deep devotion and defense he gets? Not being a liberal or a Democrat doesn't seem to quite cut it anymore.

 

[Doctrine1st]

They no longer support Bush not renouncing God.

That statement had nothing to do with God but rather placing faith in Bush over the facts of his presidency.

 

[UberLutheran]

Which they haven't been -- for quite some time, actually.

Everybody makes a lot of money when conservative economic principles are put into place.

 

[12volt_man]

August 28th.

Here's the request:
http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf

And when did President Bush respond?

But I'm unclear why you are stuck on her request, when the DHS NRP directs FEMA to act without waiting for such a request.... care to elaborate?

Because the law says that he cannot grant aid unless asked by the governor of that state.

 

[azzy]

After many, many weeks of debating in my mind, I've come to a conclusion about our President: he stinks. Sorry to everyone that I voted for the guy. Politics aside, you just needed to watch Bush when he first hit the ground in Mississippi all 'ums' and 'uhs' to see the guy just isn't leadership material. But its not just that, that was just the straw that broke the camels back. His slander of the Minutemen, super-failure to do anything about our fuel crisis, endorsing renewal of the Patriot Act.......the list goes on. (Iraq isn't really that big a sore point for me, but thats for another topic.) As a Republican who voted for Bush, I feel obligated to continue to support the person I elected, but as a man, I have to call a spade a spade, swallow the pride and agree with what so many -even, God forgive me, Michael Moore-have said: Bush is the wrong man to be President. Now, I'll take all the 'I told you so's' from the Dems and the Left, I've made my bed and I will lie in it so fire away. Voting for Bush was a foolish move on my part, but I'd be even more of a fool if I kept supporting him. The writings on the wall with Bush, how ironic so many of the predominantly Chrisitian GOP can't read it. Just how far into hell are you people going to follow this guy?

BTW, taking down the Elephant icon. Posted this here instead of the GOP forums so non-Repubs could respond if they wanted too without worrying about being reported. I also encourage other Bush supporters to seriously re-think their position and ask themselves if they are just letting pride keep them hanging on. What's he doing thats so great, show me just one thing that he has done that is worthy of the deep devotion and defense he gets? Not being a liberal or a Democrat doesn't seem to quite cut it anymore.

So what have you accomplished in life?

Do you know Bush personnally?Do you know his struggles?

Pray for him and stop whining,because,for one,he cant run again,and two,the bible says too.

Walking in his shoes and carrying his burden Im sure would enlighten you a little,but I suspect you wouldnt be able to do it,and certainly not as well as Bush.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Let's not forget that he's being judged by an unfair standard.

For instance, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, virtually every Democrat in the Senate, the UN, German intelligence, British intelligence all said that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US. No one said a word.

President Bush said that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US. The left says that he lied.

The same statements, all made on good faith and based on the same information. So, tell me, why is it the truth when the left said it, but a lie when President Bush said it?

What is the difference between the two, other than hypocrisy and partisanship on the left?

They say that President Bush did nothing about the hurricane but they conveniently fail to mention that the president can only act within the parameters set for him by the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow him to act in this way, unless he is asked by the governor of that state.

Why won't the left be straight with us about what President Bush's authority allows him to do?

More to the point, why are they so quick to condemn the President for not doing what he doesn't have the authority to do in the first place, but won't question the actions of the Democrat mayor of New Orleans or the Democrat governor of LA, except to make vague statements, such as "there were failures at all levels of government"?

If "John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, virtually every Democrat in the Senate, the UN, German intelligence, British intelligence" were required to show their evidence to the world in the same manner Bush did through Powell at the UN they would have been dry roasted with countless debunking that Bush recieved along with the British intelligence with their plagerized dosseir created from outdated info of a college student. Anyone can make claims for war, however when one lays their cards on the table that's where the rubber leaves the road and in continuing to ignore the all those who called into question that evidence and charging forward still citing that debunked evindence, that is tantamount to a LIE.

 

[parousia70]

And when did President Bush respond?

How did President Bush respond is a better question.
Care to enlighten us?

Because the law says that he cannot grant aid unless asked by the governor of that state.

Is it your contention, then, that implimenting the DHS National Response Plan would have been ILLEGAL because it states that "Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude."?