Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm

Posted By: Mrs. M on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate - Kendra

that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.

Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Yes, Ronnie and Nancy, and George and Laura...
for one another.

You appear to be mentally ill
nuff said.
handicapped and mentally ill
You can call it liberal or socialism or whatever tilts your wheel - but I believe it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to help the handicapped and mentally ill. There are some who, due to no fault of their own, are in need of help by our government because by the looks of most complaints I am reading - We The People - are only out for ourselves and screw everybody else. Just exactly what are we paying massive taxes for? If it is not to help my fellow man.......then what is it for? They did everything on the cheap (including outfitting our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan) during our last administration - less government so GW and his cronies could steal us blind and walk off with the WH silverware in the last few days of tyranny. God help us all when the food riots start.
Mentally ill and Reaganomics
I, along with most Americans remember when Reagan decided to 'de-institutionalize' the mentally ill; turned them into the streets and when he did so, he made certain that the majority of these unfortunate souls were released into urban neighborhoods (I live in the Bay Area in California) - of course he did not turn them loose in cities like Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Concord, Orinda and other affluent suburbs, and didn't give a rat's patoot regarding the effect this would have on these already struggling urban neighborhoods, and cared even less about the type of care these institutionalized individuals received (most often than not did NOT receive).  Every time I hear that man's name it sickens me..
Mentally ill and Reaganomics
I, along with most Americans remember when Reagan decided to 'de-institutionalize' the mentally ill; turned them into the streets and when he did so, he made certain that the majority of these unfortunate souls were released into urban neighborhoods (I live in the Bay Area in California) - of course he did not turn them loose in cities like Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Concord, Orinda and other affluent suburbs, and didn't give a rat's patoot regarding the effect this would have on these already struggling urban neighborhoods, and cared even less about the type of care these institutionalized individuals received (most often than not did NOT receive).  Every time I hear that man's name it sickens me..
He is mentally disturbed.
nm
Mentally ill....? That is quite a bash, friend...
I was trying to be civil but the gloves are off now. You are so far embroiled into the liberal lockstep you don't even know what civil is, and you have demonstrated your own immaturity by this attack.

*I think you and your friends are playground bullies with maturity of a 5-year-old...*

This from someone who supports a so-called adult who let his johnson run his life...and then commit perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up. Yep, there is a MATURE role model for you and you are following him like the sheeple. Instead of talking about it intelligently (that presupposes you are capable), you whine, snipe, and run.

You are welcome to any opinion you have about the *far right* Republican party, conservatives, et al. I have an opinion about the *far left* (although I believe that the whole party is so far left there is no more *moderate* left, they have been so effectively silenced). I believe that the Democratic party will finish destroying this country if they stay in power. Bill got a good start, and you, like the good sheeple are, follow blindly. The upper crust of your liberal party could not care LESS about you, walked to power on your shoulders, and intend to keep you oppressed and under their thumb to stay in power. The truth is, the far right Republican party cares more about you than they ever will. Not bashing, an opinion!

*You guys don't play fair.* Boy, THAT is rich! Someone disagrees with you or takes a shot at that tin god Clinton you bow to, and you don't want to have an intelligent debate, you just want the naysayers to go away. It is that kind of blinder vision that lets people like Adolf Hitler take hold and suddenly it is all right to kill six million people. You spewed enough venom here to pretty much prove that point. But the bigger point is this one, and if you have one brain cell left that is not liberally indoctrinated, LISTEN. The far right Republican party, and conservatives, are AMERICANS too! For the love of mike, get a grip and take off that liberal hat for 10 seconds and realize, conservatives are people just like you, have families just like you, pay taxes just like you, and whether you LIKE IT OR NOT, have rights just like you. I cannot believe the tone you are taking. Read your own post! Sheesh. You are acting like these people (myself included) are your mortal enemies. What in the world is the MATTER with you??? This is a posting board, not a battlefield. Good grief!!
Olbermann? -the mentally deranged commentator?
nm
Nope...the mentally deranged comentator is
.
News flash, Jon Voight is mentally ill.
x
U.S. military violated own rules on mentally ill troops...sm

Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.


The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.


In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.

Because leftist extremists are not emotionally or mentally adults
They cannot hold their own in debate, so they throw fits and insults. They throw they pre-programmed leftist talking points that have nothing of substance behind them.  They cannot have an adult conversation simply because they are not adults psychologically.
Do you know how mentally sick you are? You sound like a wild woman to me.
.
He also said that some of programs...
need to be stripped and he is well aware of that. Don't forget, he didn't write this all by his lonesome - it was written in the House. He does not want it ditched altogether for fear of the consequences of starting from scratch - WE DON'T HAVE TIME. BUT, the pubs could give a rats about those of us in limbo - they'd rather engage in partisan infighting. If the morons would quit fighting - get to work and strip the garbage - present us with a job creation only bill - we'd be in business. But, cooperation is impossible - as evidenced by the hate posted all over this board.
cut what federal programs??

So the Federal govt is gonna cut back in entitlement programs to fund the rebuilding of NO?  Not gonna cease his tax cuts for the rich, just gonna cut back on programs for.....the disadvantaged, of course, the ones whose voices will not be heard..Whose fault was NO?  Bush and his administration.  I say Bush should donate some of his millions to the rebuilding of NO, let some of the unfortunate ones camp on his 1700 acres that he boasts about..He got us into this awful mess.  His speech the other night was a joke..Just another press moment, trying to pull on Americans heart strings but it aint working, LOL..**Long live equality**..Three more years?  Oh gee, can we survive?  What will be the next catastrophe under this fool?  9/11, Iraq and now NO..**America where are you**?

The programs in the stimulus...nm
x
The History Channel programs are

often very factual. I watch it a lot.


I would love to see the John Adams program but I gave up HBO. They didn't seem to have very good programming for a long time, movie-wise, and a lot of the series were on too late for me, so I gave HBO up (after 15 years).


 


 


 

govt job programs/CETA

My first real job some 30 years ago was a CETA job. That was Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. This was doing medical transcription for a county health department.  I worked as a CETA employee for a year, they trained me and paid me, and I have worked in transcription for 30 years, of course moving on to hospital stuff. Made big bucks for quite a few years and now here I am, strangely enough, I think back to the same money I made all those years ago.  You've got to keep your sense of humor. 


 


   

Ron Reagan
Is great and tells it like it is.  Keep spreading the TRUTH, Ron.
we already have schools and programs to feed our hungry
x
Yea but he didn't have to pre-empt my favorite programs
Judge Joe and Judge Alex. They were gonna be pretty good today. Guess I'll have to wait for re-runs. LOL
In our area, all the "Handicapable" work programs are
subsidized through the state or private donors. The state is broke. They have already announced this is one of the areas of the budget that will be eliminated, along with the subsidized housing programs that provide the same people with independent or assisted living residences. The private corporate donors in our area are announcing layoffs by the thousands and have cut way back on community donations.
This is not social programs......this is HUGE government
!!
Why shouldnt gov fund religious programs?
I should be able to get some funding just like everyone else if I have a religious program.  I mean we fund abortion here in the US and abroad.  We fund wars, we fund all kinds of CRAP so why NOT religion?  Isnt it supposed to be equal and fair?  Why is it the religious people of this world, namely the Christians get the short end of the stick? 
Here's some info on the 'shovel ready' programs.
Read this morning in our paper that the majority of the stimulus money coming to our great state of Ohio is going to go not to construction projects (like it was supposed to, hence the term 'shovel ready'), but to study construction projects.

I get that maybe we just shouldn't throw money to whatever pothole comes first and that there has to be some sort of order, but the reasoning behind this 'study' given by Gov. Strickland was that it was totally within the parameters of the stimulus and "we're putting engineers and planners to work."

I'm sure that will be greatly appreciated by those construction workers three years from now - after they've lost their homes, cars, equipment, business, etc.

I wish I could explain it, but I just don't get it either.
Non-Reagan is an idiot. sm
He's a disgrace to his father's memory and to his living mother.  He knows nothing!  Come on people.  You can do better than this!  I would accept Alan Colmes or Dan Rather, but NON REAGAN????  Unbelievable!
And Reagan?..he armed
was fighting Iran. We were in bed with Saddam, when Reagan was president...have you forgotten that? What does that make us?
When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush

September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.

Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
Bush and Reagan....
Each had one known accusation...the woman who accused Bush had definite mental problems (see below) and the accusation against Reagan was in the 50's...one accusation. Clinton has had several of all kinds of sexual allegations made against him. Like I said, I know Juanita Broaddrick. Bottom line, Reagan and Bush had one isolated allegation against them...see below for the one against Bush. Not hardly the same thing at all. I did not say Clinton was morally bankrupt because he was a Democrat...he is a Democrat who happens to be morally bankrupt. Was and still is.

George W. Bush Rape Allegation

In 2002, Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas, a writer of Christian books, filed a pro se lawsuit against George W. Bush alleging that Bush had raped her in October 2000.[9]. The complaint also claims that she had been harassed, that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and two other men purporting to be FBI agents, that her bank account had been interfered with, and that she had been threatened and beaten. There was no substantiating evidence for any of her claims. The suit also claimed Bush raped her husband, Christopher. Christopher allegedly served a year in prison after pleading no contest to assault charges against his wife. He later filed for divorce.

Many believed Schoedinger suffered from mental disorders. Among American newspapers, Schoedinger's ordeal was covered only by the local Fort Bend Star, whose editor is said to have off-handedly opined, I had heard she was a nut case. [10]

This lady later committed suicide.
no--Reagan was generalizing
it just applied to Obama. We can learn from things that people have said in the past.
If you can't spell REAGAN, I don't want you to have a gun nm
nm
man, I left out Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related
God d*mn America is ok then? As long as you have good church programs? (nm)
x
Correct....or the 3.5 trillion dollar social programs
@
Tax cuts, progressive tax system, social programs
are as American as apple pie and these same policies and initiatives can be found puncuating the pages of our history from the day of our country's inception.

You do not understand Marxism or socialism, or you would be a lot more exercised by the current redistribution of wealth that takes your tax dollars and moves them upward to an elite ruling class that represses and undermines the middle class at the drop of a hat. State ownership of banks, lending institutions and direct personal property "buy outs" (as proposed by McCain certainly smack of Marxism and are not exactly what you could call traditional American values.
employer based-programs subsidize insurance...
not just make it available--and therein lies my problem.
And govt shouldn't fund religious programs....
schools, facilities, etc.
Former Reagan official: Is another 9/11 is in the works?

(There is NOTHING this administration could do that would surprise me. )












March 16, 2006


Is Another 9/11 in the Works?


by Paul Craig Roberts


If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?


Yes, you would.


Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.


First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.


Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.


Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.


Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.


Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.


If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?


That’s what Bush is doing.


Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.


The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.


In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.


In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.


It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.


Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.


Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some black ops group will orchestrate the attack.


One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.


Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?


Fantasy? Let’s hope so.


 


 

I agree too. Former Reagan Republican here.sm
I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Bush the first time, sorry I did. 16 years of corrupt politics, lies, and scandals is hard to deal with. Clinton turned the White House into a ho house and Bush is turning it into the Reichstag. Think the country would be better off if Larry the Cable Guy was President.
Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
Reagan's Socialist Legacy

An interesting article that expounds on several decades.......for a complete review, here's the link:  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/scheer


 


Reagan's Socialist Legacy


by:  Robert Scheer


Although gan's we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal healthcare, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe's. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don't understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.



The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama's watch is an extension of Bush's banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don't want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?

Programs the conservatives make a life long mission
nm
Putting together job programs in order to get people back to work....sm
able to perhaps save their homes and families, able to pay taxes, which will in turn pay for social programs, support the infrastructure, and then when folk are back to work they will feel secure in perhaps purchasing again, which will help businesses....FDR did it, it takes time, it is not a quick fix, it won't make Obama into Merlin, it took 8 LONG YEARS to get into this bottomless pit, can we give this administration at least a year or two to try to get things moving upward again? I may not support every social program included therein, but work is being done, adn will continue. I used to cross the desert on occasion when I lived in CA, and I am starting to see vultures on the side of the road again circling and not even waiting to pounce and pull apart the government. Why? Just my opion.
Never heard of rape charges against Reagan or GW. sm
Also, Kaye Summersby, Ike's *supposed* mistress said that they were very close but never consummated anything. 
and when Ronald Reagan was prez, NANCY was
Actual entry in Reagan's diary
Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his
diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper
Collins
 
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around
this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one 
who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking
shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a
real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll
hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy
work."
 
From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

 

So, Ronald Reagan is a black liberationist
The windfall profits tax was not actually a tax on profit. Please read up on it's history. It was an excise tax which was enacted April 2, 1980, during the last year of the Carter administration. Interesting to note that it was not repealed until August 23, 1988. It stayed in effect for 7 years, 4 months and 21 days under Ronald Reagan; in other words, for 92% of his entire time in office. So does that make Ronald Reagan a Marxist/socialist black liberationist too?
Noonan (reagan speech writer) on

caught with microphone still on.  Speaking with Mike Murphy, a repub talking head about SP's qualifications.


 


http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-usnoon045828642sep04,0,1097812.story

A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate
There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.
Obama apolgizes to Nancy Reagan

We all know Obama has a sense of humor.  He's likeable and funny and I enjoy hearing him speak.  But he really should think before he speaks, and not try to make jokes.  Americans are needing issues to be solved, not seeing how funny our President elect is.  This is a very serious and grave time for America and we need some reassurance that he will do what he promised on his campaign trail.  He spoke of Hope through his campaign.  Now we need to see the hope turn into reality.  I had read a lot of articles from both liberal and conservative sources that he doesn't do well with "off the cuff" comments and I think he should stick to the speeches that are written for him. 


Like I said - I like Obama.  He's a good speaker.  But his comment about Nancy Reagan whether you like her or not was indeed making fun of her and unecessary.  He should have just said, "I've talked to the past presidents" and left it at that.  By him having to state they were alive??? The public is not so stup!d that we wouldn't know he didn't mean the "dead" Presidents.  I hope that's not what he thought.  I'm just glad he called her to apologize.


On another note I watched the press conference he gave and I would have like to have heard a little more about what he's going to do once he gets in the white house, who he is picking for his cabinet, and what are the first things he is going to do to help Americans and what promises he gave to us that he will be able to keep and work on first.  Not what kind of dog he is going to get or where his kids go to school.  That does not affect American and I like many of my friends don't care.  We care about issues that affect us.

special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow 
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to  president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a  question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office  worthy of respect. But it
must be asked. 
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane  Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory  response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his  director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown:  Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job. 
Is Bush a serious person? 
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to  the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear  that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is  necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe  that has
occurred on their watch. 
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's  performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and  government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage  to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away  from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees  gave
way. 
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike  would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the  city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New  Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that  the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one  can
say they didn't see it coming. 
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee,  Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day  of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know  about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the  world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a 
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in  the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is 
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the 
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance? 
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by  members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not  acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The  administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never  accountable. 
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto  accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on  global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it. 
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent  decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have  preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city  and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be  unsafe. 
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the  administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit  states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned  from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available  elsewhere across the
US. 
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to  mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for  the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions.  Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war  based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to  prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American  soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other 
equipment. 
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist  affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist  attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the  US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything. 
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared  administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic  responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans  normally live and
work together. 
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and  political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The  administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to  meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the  world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5,  2005
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved