in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 6:11 PM:

Philip S. wrote:

in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 5:52 PM:


Philip S. wrote:

in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 3:29 AM:



Philip S. wrote:

Terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference--the
current administration ran for re-election less than a year ago on the
premise that they could keep us all safe, that they were better than
their
opponents on issues of "homeland security", that when it came to
protecting
the homeland, only they could do the job.

How do you propose that the Feds stop a hurricane? Put up a tall fence?
Protecting the homeland from a hurricane. That is hilarious...

Matt


Um, are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or do you just not
know how to read? I clearly was referring to the response to the disaster,
not the disaster itself. But feel free to erect as many strawmen as
possible.

No, simply pointing out that what you wrote was ludicrous. Maybe you
didn't write what you intended, but above you clearly say that
"terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference"
and then you say the Bush administration ran for re-election on the
premise that they could keep us all safe from either of the above. And
then you say that they should have protected the homeland. So you are
clearly saying that they should have been able to protect the homeland
from EITHER a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. They have clearly
done the former and they can't possibly do the latter so your assertion
is hilarious as I stated.


Matt


It's not hilarious, it's sad. It's incompetence on a scale I've seldom seen
before, and thank God people are starting to catch on. Just today, I've read
editorials and heard statements by the likes of The Washington Times
(extremely pro-Bush paper), The National Review, Red State.org (extremely
conservative website), Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and a host of
conservative politicians and pundits all blasting Bush and the federal
response to this disaster. Good. If they're catching on, the rest of the
country can't be far behind.


Except that you weren't talking about a response to a terrorist attack
or natural disaster, you were talking about protecting the homeland from
either of these. Is English a second or third language for you?

Matt

Okay, if it'll stop you obfuscating the matter with semantics, I'll clarify
my remarks:

Nobody expects the President to prevent a natural disaster. What reasonable
people should expect from the President (especially one who ran on a
platform of "homeland security") is a competent, timely response to perhaps
the worst natural disaster to ever strike this country. They should expect
that he not wait until two days after the scope of the disaster became
apparent to end his vacation. They should expect that the Secretary of State
(who happens to be in charge of coordinating relief efforts from other
countries) not spend Wednesday evening taking in a Broadway show and
Thursday shoe-shopping. They have a right to expect that the head of FEMA
know more about the situation than a CNN reporter.

Oh, and this just in--a Senate Republican is co-sponsoring a full
investigation into the whole thing. Good. The apologists are rapidly
dwindling, and I'm thinking most of them can be found on this newsgroup.