Mission Accomplished! Bush Declares Evacuation Victory 1183

Hmmm... So, you don't know what a mischaracterization is! Fine, I'll just store that little tidbit of information away!

Now, let's see what we have here?!?

Okay, so you still want to insist that generally "effective" rescue depends on having "qualified" people operating under some "organized" plan! That's patentedly silly! To "pop" this misinformation "bubble", I merely need to point out that there are people already in the area, with no "official" qualifications, who do save lives, merely by reacting to their observerations of need. Boom, you're argument goes up in smoke!

Here... Let me offer you some help, before you "go down for the third time". What you are talking about is the response of "Oraganised Offcial Responders". And sure, you'd expect them to try to maintain some control over who gets to do what. But, they should also be able to make reasonable judgements about who should be allowed to do what. After all, you don't wait for qualified people to come in and clear roads, when there are people available who could do the job.

You certainly don't allow 25,000 people to remain in a hot stadium without food or water for days at a time, while you're turning down offers to bring food and water in, because they haven't been "cleared" to do so. They have food, water and vehicles and people to make the delivery and distribute it, you let them pbutt through and get the job done regardless. Remembering that the children, the elderly, the sick the infirm and the dehydrated or starving people in there, might die if they're required to wait another hour or two. I mean really... Haven't you any compbuttion?

Errr... They were prevented by FEMA! And they were prevented from even leaving Florida by order of Jeb Bush! Perhaps Florida is the "State" you mention because you misunderstood the articles, if you read any and aren't really parroting a party line or two.

Well, even under your imagined scenario, the emergency-disaster was woefully mismanaged after billions of dollars wasted over the 4 years they had to plan for it. Nothing got in to where it was needed -- at the stadium -- for three days, while Condi shopped and took in shows her desk in D.C. was being buried with offers of help from overseas. While Bush cleared shrub from his ranch, slept, ate cake and strummed his GeeTar, he remained completely and totally unaware of an embarrbutting national disaster as it unfolded over three days on national tv, yet!

CherKoff and Brown were no where in evidence, nor were their appointed underlings on the job either! 72 hours, 25,000 people in a sweltering stadium without food or water, and no one at the top knew or cared about it. No wonder we're getting all this "Monday Morning Disaster Management-Photo Opery", huh? You guess they're not proud of their blatant mismanagement of the effort to keep America safe, eh?

Hee, hee... You've got to excuse me for laughing at that statement! Three days, 25,000 people, without food or water on national tv, and you say: "No one eversaid that plans work perfectly."

The first problem you have is to show that there actually was a "plan"! Only then can you begin to justify why that "Plan" didn't work for three whole days.

Yeah... Your statement of the obvious does nothing to explain why 4 long years and many millions of dollars, in the hands of the supposedly "highly qualified" Bush appointees, didn't result in a plan that could have at least spared the nation the global embarrbuttment of being so inept and incompetent in our response to an emergency after all the resounding pronouncements of commitment that followed 9-11... You know, like the Patriots Act? Shouldn't having had that pbutted have had an impact on keeping America safe? You know, like we were told it would? Do you think you can come up with a non-laughable argument that would stop the world from laughing at us?

Making this statement doesn't fit your argument. Or didn't you notice that order wasn't brought? That would mean that there was no plan... Clearly that isn't what you intend to argue, so why say it? You aren't reaching for absurdities in the effort to defend the Bush response are you? You do realize we've heard these kinds of things before and the nation has grown really tired of them.

I couldl make sense of your argument, but to do that I'd have to buttign portions of your argument to different parts of the timeline of events! Even then, what you say would not make sense in the overall scheme of things, but it would make more sense than it does with you simply making a string of buttertions.

You see, the things that you are saying are only true dependant upon where they occur in the timeline. Since they didn't let people in to distribute food when it was critical that they do so, you must be talking about the aftermath, when the food and water weren't needed so critcally because the stadium had been emptied.

Look, when your post is held up to the actual timeline of events that occured it doesn't make any sense! You are speaking about generalities, probably unconnected with this disaster. If so, then sure, you've listed things that it would make some sense to do in a rational fashion on a case by case basis.

But to simply string sentences, arguments and ideas together, ignoring events under discussion, is a good way to create a mistaken impression that you're trying to say that things went well in NO, and that the failures were excuseable. I'm certain you're not trying to tell us that! I'm certain you wouldn't try to explain away the failures we all watched on tv, read about in the newspapers, heard confirmed by the Presidents own admissions and actions, as well as what we can still read on the highly credible blogs of professional people and groups that were actually on the ground there.

Perhaps you need to take more time in constructing your posts so that they comport a wee bit better with reality, eh?

Obwon