I don't need to have been there to know the bloodlust. I also don't see what people would've "accepted" making any difference. Even if Clinton or Gore had been president, they'd have bombed Afghanistan, and certainly not gone into Iraq. So when Katraina hit there would've been no war to distract either.
I'm also well aware of the role of FEMA. AFTER an emergency has occured. It was too late by then. Nagin was to blame for the poor infrastructure that ensured the roads were blocked and noone could get out. That was his responsibility. FEMA have no jurisdiction over issues like that, their job is to coordinate RESPONSES to emergencies, not deal with issues like road traffic management.
Bush "packing" the courts is no different to what any Democrat would have done, except the court would've been packed with liberal nutjobs instead. And that's just as bad. Who gives a fuck about the Environment? My worry with the right-wing court is stem cell research, overuling Roe v Wade, bans on gay marriage etc.
I'm not pro-Bush, I just don't think you can slate him for the economy or Katrina. There are lots of things you can slate him for (his policies on the above topics, stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage) and those are what I criticise him for. FYI I was pro-Gore when he stood against Bush, and I only supported Bush against Kerry, as Kerry was an inept twit, Bush isn't. It's a common misconception that he is.
Bush's failing isn't his IQ, it's his extreme politics, although arguably that's the fault of the Democrats, because this partisanship was definitely a beast of their creating after Gore lost. Bush stood as a moderate against Gore, and an extremist against Kerry, yet won more support in the latter election. I think that suggests the blame for these right-wing extremist policies rests with the US electorate, not Bush.
Leonie: I think we're suffering from a communication break-down as you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. So I'll try again:
1) You said that a lack of ground troops to deal with Katrina suggests the US was ill-prepared for another terrorist attacks. Having the soldiers at home wouldn't have been any assistance with Katrina, or with any terrorist attack. You don't send soldiers to clean up wreckage, and that's all there would've been with another 9/11 attack, surely? A London-style attack could never happen in the US, security to get into the country is too tight. Equally Katrina was an issue because there wasn't enough air support, but there isn't an overwhelming amount of air support in Iraq. It's mainly in Afghanistan.
2) I didn't mean that the people struck by Katrina were left to fend for themselves. Only that response times would be slower, the priority would be lower than the war (more lives at stake) and resources would be lower. The war was already in full flow, it's not like Bush could have brought resources back. He had no way of knowing they'd be needed for Katrina before it hit.
3) Without the war in Iraq another 9/11 would have happened. Not because Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. But because 9/11 didn't happen because of terrorists. Islamic terrorists have been around for decades, how come this was the first successful attack on US soil? Because America had disengaged from the world. Without the war in Iraq, America would equally have been seen as disengaged. Afghanistan was retaliation, Iraq wasn't.
Last edited by Hazzle; 15-08-2006 at 10:18 AM.