Saturday morning round-up
by Derek W. on September 10th, 2005
When I originally published material on this blog suggesting the Iraq war hurt the relief effort in New Orleans and the surrounding area, many people scoffed.
But a new AP article on CNN makes the idea a little harder to scoff at:
BAY ST. LOUIS, Mississippi (AP)—The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states’ initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.
One of those military officials is Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, who is chief of the National Guard Bureau. According to him, “arguably” an entire day or so of response time was lost due to the absense of these National Gaurdsmen.
Democrat Rep. Gene Taylor “told reporters the absence of the deployed Mississippi Guard units made it harder for local officials to coordinate their initial response.” And before you attack Taylor as some Bush-hating filfth-spewing traitor to America, remember this: Taylor’s home was completely washed away in the hurricane.
In other news: Colin Powell has admitted that his speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a “blot” on his record. The most interesting part the article is this:
Powell in the TV interview also disputed the Bush administration’s linking of Saddam’s regime with terrorists.He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. “I can’t think otherwise, because I’d never seen evidence to suggest there was one,” he said.
Bush must know something Powell doesn’t, I guess.
Speaking of which, the President’s job approval rating has slipped, for the first time, to below 40 percent.
And a new analysis by the Congressional Budget office indicates that even before you include the cost of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush will fail to keep his promise to cut the deficit in half by the time he leaves office.
The study predicts that the $331 billion budget deficit projected for the current budget year would rise to $370 billion by 2009, the year Bush has promised to cut the deficit to at least $260 billion. Bush promised to cut the deficit in half from a projection in February 2004 of a $521 billion deficit for 2009.
Instead of actually taking a little responsibility and maybe making an effort to not outspend every flippin’ president (Democrat or otherwise) since LBJ, the Bush administration has started playing the blame game:
In response, the White House asked for congressional action instead of rhetoric.“Instead of complaining about the deficit, how about doing something about it?” said Bush spokesman Trent Duffy, noting that Spratt opposes Republican efforts to trim just $35 billion from federal entitlement programs over the next five years.
This is truly pathetic, coming from a spokesman of the President who has yet to veto a bill after nearly six years in office.
So-called conservatives [Two term Bush supporters] should hang their heads in shame. We do not have anything close to a conservative president in office; instead, we have a war president who throws money around like a Democrat.


5 Comments
SecDef
September 10th, 2005 at 10:45 am
National Guard: 70% of the LA NG troops were in LA. Besides, the Iraq war does not matter here. Would you be complaining if those 30% were away digging out Ground Zero? Fighting a forrest fire?
Colin Powell: Able Danger has confirmed that there was a link between AQ and Iraq.
Deficit: How about cutting education funding? Statistically, the more you spend, the worse the students perform. Draw that to its logical conclusion! :D
Vetoing: Yes, that is pretty pathetic. President Bush missed a BIG opportunity (last month?) to veto a pork-laden bill. >:-(
Michael
September 12th, 2005 at 2:58 am
“And before you attack Taylor as some Bush-hating filth-spewing traitor to America, remember this: Taylor’s home was completely washed away by the hurricane.”
In other words, he was reacting out of emotion. He’s also a Democrat. Ideologue.
Apparently, even though you don’t have the time to write an article on why the Iraq War isn’t justified, you do have time to write all these posts on the blog. Hypocrite.
You do make a good point about the deficit, though.
Derek W.
September 12th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Michael, you must have missed a message I posted in the NO entry:
“Michael, you will be pleased to hear that the next issue will contain part one of a series of articles dealing with Iraq and the war on terrorism.”
Regardless of that, let me explain something else to you. Virtue Blog is connected to Virtue mag, but not everyone from Virtue Mag is involved with the blog. Only about half of those involved with the mag are on the blogging team, and of those, three of us have made a vast majority of the posts.
Going back to September 1, there have been a total of nine posts on the blog by people other than me. Today is the 12th. That means, if I did not post at all on this blog, there would not even be an average of one new post per day on the blog. I am on Virtue Mag, but I am also on the blog, and I have a responsibility to do everything I can to try to keep the blog going, especially when other members aren’t posting as much.
Not to mention, blog posts are not nearly as time consuming as articles. They can be done in five to ten minutes, so it’s easy to do one before I leave for classes, before I eat supper, before I got to work, etc, etc.
I’d suggest you stop talking about things you know nothing about. I am growing tired of your arrogance and your personal attacks.
Michael
September 13th, 2005 at 1:58 am
Alright, I understand. I just wish you’d hold off on attacking the Iraq War until you had time to write your article.
Michael
September 13th, 2005 at 1:59 am
Oh yeah. I’m sorry.