You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Bush Vetos the SChip Bill: Healthcare for poor kids = bad. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

All I've seen is you defending Bush, mostly by just saying it's all Nagin and Blanco's fault

You exaggerate and misstate. You cannot say I'm 'defending' Bush and ignore the following clearly worded statements to the contrary...
...the initial federal response should have been much stronger
Bush's fault ... that initial relief efforts were tepid, and that sufficient relief effort didn't arrive for a few days
Bush's fault that the first initial relief was too small
I never implied that Brown didn't screw up badly
Bush's praise of Brown ... feckless and self-serving

Neither can you justly use the absolute "all Nagin/Blanco's fault" when I said...
There's plenty of blame to go around on Katrina.

So I would respectfully suggest that your casting of my position is neither accurate, nor fair - and that you thoughtfully reconsider. What you incorrectly percieve to be a 'defense of Bush' is - in fact - round condemnation of ALL involved parties and an attempt to correct misplaced responsibility. My position is that all levels of government be held responsible for their mistakes. With Katrina, the errors were myriad, widespread, and went all the way from the top (Bush) to the middle (Brown, Blanco, Nagin) and - yes - even to the absolute rock bottom for every stupid citizen that wouldn't leave an impending disaster.

You on the other hand want to say that liberal environmentalists sabotaged the levees with their silly concerns about wildlife.

That again is an exaggeration and misstatement. I said that environmentalists have PREVENTED the necessary actions that would have reduced/prevented the problems in New Orleans and California. That is NOT the same thing as saying they 'sabatoged' the levees. That phrasing implies that I hinted they acted with active malice. Stupid? Yes. Short-sighted? Yes. Malicious? Unlikely.

your argument that we should hold Bush entirely blameless for any aspect of the disaster

See above. I never said Bush was 'blameless'. You mischaracterize me. What I say is to ascribe to Bush the PROPER blame what what he has actual responsiblity for... An inadequate initial response. That's all you can really blame him for. Everything else is on Brown, Nagin, Blanco, and citizens.

The problem I have is in the overloaded, biased, and clearly misleading hate in the language of the Sifters. The following are just a few examples of Sifters who are blaming Bush as if it was all his fault that the Katrina was a class-A snafu.

You know, of all the ***ups George W. Bush is responsible for, his Hurricane Katrina response is the one that hits me the most viscerally, even to this day.
I felt like Bush had in effect turned the richest country on earth into a third world nation, in a matter of just a few short days
Bush should have not just been impeached but executed for being to stupid to do his job!
a Cat 5 Hurricane should NEVER be blown off (no pun intended) like the president did.

All I'm saying is that it is rather silly to act like this was 'all Bush's fault' when there are TONS of other sources where significant blame belongs long before you reach Bush.

It was a nasty snowball effect. Environmentalists wouldn't let the ACOE repair the levees, so they were inadequate. People wouldn't leave the city, so there were way too many people still to evacuate. Nagin didn't force the evacuation until after the hurricane made landfall, so evacuation efforts were slowed by adverse weather. Blanco told Brown "We can handle it" as late as the 29th of August - so federal rescues didn't start until the 30th. Brown's first rollout was too small, resulting in less than adequate care. People in the city started acting like @$$holes, further complicating relief efforts. All you can really say about Bush is that - like a lot of people - his actions were too little and too late. But he's not alone in that boat.

>> ^thinker247:
It's too bad Bush hasn't gotten a blowjob in the Oval Office.


Haha. How has this not been arranged?

>> ^thinker247:
It's too bad Bush hasn't gotten a blowjob in the Oval Office.


Maybe he hasn't heard that "rumor" either.

Odd how his facts are rumor, and rumors fact.

It's too bad Bush hasn't gotten a blowjob in the Oval Office.

To the dem apologists on here...the point is they can't have it both ways! They can not on one hand tell us they are trying their best to end this war by submitting spending bills that have a time line for withdrawal and that big bad Bush keeps vetoing them because he won't commit to a deadline. Then on the other hand say that if they are elected that they would not commit to a deadline either.