1 This Missouri democrat won't be rejecting it, and laughs at a
republican effort to hide behind the race and poverty card.  After
Bush and the republicans have cynically engaged in class warfare for 6
years (remember linking the minimum wage to the estate tax???), it's
wonderful to see a solid, former prosecutor like McCaskill stand up
against pampered coward like Jim Talent. 



She could have pulled her punches and said things a little nicer, and
maybe she should have.  But it's worth it to watch you and the
other whiny rightwingers yipe like puppies who have been swatted with a
newspaper. 



Whatever state and local failures may have occurred (and they were
mostly exaggerated or misunderstood), the fact remains that Bush
wouldn't interrupt his vacation when a major American city was
destroyed, and he had installed a horse lawyer to be in charge. 
Horrible malfeasance. 

2 Guess you liked the Kool-Aid, Dan.  After all, her words are a flat-out lie, but you defend them as "standing up". 

Your respect for her "standing up" is no different than the respect Monica showed when Bill Clinton "stood up" for her.  Hope you have some good knee-pads.

3 Do you honestly believe that if the Superdome had been full of underfed republicans, the airspace would not have been jampacked with relief helicopters, even if they were rented (at profiteering rates) from Halliburton?

4 If the New Orleans (and Louisiana as a whole) had been full of Republicans, there would not have been the sort of crisis that took place due to the incompetence and corruption of state and local officials.

Your question itself shows that McCaskill's blood libel of George W. Bush is indefensible, for you cannot muster a single piece of evidence that
"George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."  If there was such evidence, you would point to it.  Instead you trot out your moonbat talking points -- playing the race, poverty, and (now) Haliburton cards to cover the fact that McCaskill is a scuzz-bucket who is willing to sink to the most vile of levels in pursuit of victory.

5

Monies apportioned to strengthen the NO levee system were redirected to the Iraq War. Bush is to blame for putting America Last and the Big Oil/Israel special interests first. Not to guarantee local Louisiana politicos would have spent the money appropriately of course.

 

6 Money which, you may not be aware, would not have even been spent by the time of Katrina -- after nearly a decade of malign neglect by the Clinton Administration and documented state and local corruption.

But then again, if Blanco and Nagin had just ordered those school buses to roll....

7 hah- you're hilarious when you're full of it. What, the fact that Bush let over a thousand people die in New Orleans isn't enough for you? You'll only settle for an autographed letter from Bush stating that he didn't really bother to interrupt his guitar-playing vacation BECAUSE he didn't really care about poor black people near as much as he does about rich white people. Okay, I guess you win, then. He didn't send such a letter. He just let them die.

8 Then what of the inaction of Nagin and Blanco -- did they also "just let them die"?

Oh, and do you realize that the President has access to communication equipment that would allow him to direct efforts from anyplace in the freakin' country (or anywhere in the world), even if he isn't at the White House? He could and did oversee the federal effort in New Orleans -- which was, as I recall, dealt with more quickly than Hurricane Hugo during the Clinton Administration.

Your argument that Bush "let them die" "because he didn't really care about poor black people nearly as much as he does about rich white people" is utterly lacking in suppoting evidence and is every bit as much a blood libel as the claims of the "race ho" your party is running for Senate in the state of Misery (which I was glad to leave after one year of being forced to live there).

And frankly, it makes you no better than Ken Hoop and his anti-Semitic rantings.

Oh, by the way -- if you want to deal with malfeasance, what about a certain Demcorat president during the 1990s who would not interrupt a golf game to authorize a mission to get Osama bin Laden? I guess he didn't care about American people as much as he did about terrorist people -- and "making it to the hole" (on the course or in the Oval Office).

9 Care to back that up with a credible source?

10 Might I offer two sources on Clinton's failures?
http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Endangered-Long-Term/dp/0895261405/sr=8-1/qid=1158163373/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2762292-2559124?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260743

The first contains the story I slightly garbled -- Clinton was watching golf, not playing, when he delayed calling Sandy Berger for an hour when bin Laden could have been neutralized.

11 Umm, yeah. There's a lot of that book that comes out garbled. It's an insane hatchet job I read with amazement - it doesn't even bother to be consistent.

That said, I'm not arguing that hindsight doesn't show places I wish both Bush and Clinton had done more.

12 So you are Swift-Boating an American veteran -- how dare you question his patriotism by accusing him of lying about his service!

Now i will agree with you that there were a number of things that should have been done differently -- dating back at least to the Reagan Administration, where the response to terrorism should have been different. It would have included the ruthless slaughter of every member of proto-Hezbollah after the attacks on the Marine Barracks and Embassy in Beirut -- and probably should have included a similar policy regarding the PLO after the Khartoum Embassy crisis during the Nixon Administration.

And it certainly should have included unconditional support for the Shah of Iran during the Carter Mal-Administration -- or at least the carpet-bombing of Iran after hostages were taken in 1979.

Oderint Dum Metuint

13 Sure, whatever you say. I'm just glad that you and those like you will never have power. Bush is bad enough.

BTW, it's funny how you think we can win against terror through fear. I understand that Republicans are cowards, but the rest of the world tends to be a little more brave. What makes you think that suicide bombers are going to be frightened away from their plans? Do you think the IRA stopped its bombing because of fear?

14 "the ruthless slaughter of every Hezbollah" ?

More arrogant hubris. Reagan was a dolt for sending in the Marines to run interference for Israel and did the belatedly wise thing when he
quickly removed them with a fraction of the losses he would have incurred. Ask the quagmired
US forces who have just lost Anbar Province again,along with 2800 lives and myriad healthy bodies.

15 After the next terrorist attack in this country, the policy I propose will be implemented.  The only question is whether it will be the official policy of our government -- or the terms under which Democrats surrender our nation to the jihadis.

I can already hear various leading Democrats -- "I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords!"

16 Ken -- you think any solution that does not maximize the number of dead Jews is unacceptably pro-Israel.

17

http://mundi-club.blogspot.com/2006/09/america-implementing-jewish-foreign.html

you're happy with Israeli-control over policy and care less about the Gentiles who die trying to carry it out.

18 Ah, yes, Ken -- blame it on the JOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!!!!!!!!!