Letters to the Editor
-
Yet Another White House Blunder
In August 2001, Bush ignored a report that Bin Laden was getting ready to strike the U.S. He went fishing. 3,000+ died.
Last August, Bush ignored the warning that the levees might be breached in NO if a category 4 storm hit the city. I suppose he went to clear some brush. 1,300+ died.
How many dead bodies does it take to remove this incompetent menace from office?
-
Not from a cat 3
Bush's statement was correct - the letter warns that a "category 4" hurricane could cause levee breaches. Katrina was a category 3.
-
category 3 or 4: who cares?
My first inclincation also was that it was actually a category 3, which would seem to vindicate Bush. However, we thought for a long time after the storm that it was a category 4. Irrespective of that, the levees did in fact break. Bush himself probably would have said it was a cat 4 if you asked him in late september (perhaps there's some quote of someting like that out there).
In any case, '3' and '4' are labels given out to storms by humans. Clearly a strong 3 was good enough to take out the levees, and the administration had probable cause to pay early attention to the situation. It's not like they said to Bush "Don't worry, it's only going to be a strong 3 that blows through New Orleans." Clearly, Bush was not impressed by storm warnings...I believe that HE did not anticipate the levees breaking..because he is a bad president.
-
Hole in One
Yes, but was the warning in writing?
I mean, if it were in writing, you can't really Bush to have known about it.
We don't expect miracles from the man, after all.
-
01/23/06 'Countdown'
Please excuse me for not being on point, but I don't know where else to send this.
Why isn't anyone talking about the report on 'Countdown' yesterday (Monday 01/23/06) concerning Halliburton and contaminated water in Iraq? If it's true -- and Sen. Dayton certainly seemed to think it is -- I should hope that everyone would be talking a great deal about it. It was one of the most disturbing news reports I have ever heard, and, if it is true, it might finally galvanize public opinion even in the red states against Bush-Cheney and the so-called Republicans; but before I say anything more, I'd like to hear Salon verify the story's legitimacy.
-
re: a hole in the president's katrina defense
Regarding the Good Morning America interview, do you know why President Bush didn't know about the potential catastrophe from Katrina? Because he is a "hands off" President. We've heard many stories of how he lets his staff run the show while he's out riding his bike or "hitting the hay" at 10 p.m. And we've heard stories of how he angers when there is potentially bad news, thereby forcing staff to tread softly when reporting to him the day's issues. And let's not forget that he was on his vacation at the time, which probably means he wanted to hear less about the daily going-ons.
This is a character flaw that should alarm republican and democrats alike. It's very scary to have a part time President.