News now shows that Bush was told of the possible levy problems prior to coming out and saying it was unforeseeable??

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/


Wow, is this guy worthy of running even a popcicle stand?

My question:

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?

If not, how do you feel about this news? And how do you justify his competence based on this?

It's apparent to me that he one, either didn't understand the problems or two, understood the problems and didn't know how to do anything.

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?

I’ve thought of Bush as a buffoon ever since his days as Governor of Texas. This does nothing to enhance my vision of the current occupant of the White House

If not, how do you feel about this news? And how do you justify his competence based on this?

Far be it for me to help Bush out of a bind. Someone, of course, will post and defend Bush to the bitter end on this. It never fails. More of Bush’s supporters will try minimize this issue, as they have with others. It’s like getting in a rut, but maybe a pretty good strategy when one is faced with defending the indefensible. When you can’t justify—minimize.

It'll be interesting to see who steps up to the plate on this one.



RedCedar,

You’ve overlooked a possibility. Maybe George W. Bush just doesn’t give a continental damn. Maybe Kayne West was right. Maybe Bush doesn’t care about Black people or White people or Hispanic people or Native Americans or anyone except Daddy's big business friends, who have done so much to put him in the place where he can do maximum damage. Just maybe!

For the period, July 26-27, 2005 a poll by Fox News gave Bush a +3% in job approval. Since then various organizations including Fox, Gallup, Rasmussen, NBC, CBS, ABC, AP, Pew, CNN have conducted a total of 118 polls. During that period, Bush received only one positive poll. For December 12-14, 2005, Hotline-FD gave Bush a +3.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/President...04/bush_ja.html

In baseball terms, that’s 2 hits in 119 at bats. That’s a batting average of .017, sufficient to land most players on the waiver wire.

Too bad there’s not a minor league for presidents.

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?

No, I can't say that President Bush is completely incompetent because he got in the first time and was reelected the second time. He's been doing something right.

It's safe to say that he won't be elected again. This thought raises an interesting question: Can the Repubs come up with a better candidate? Related: Does it matter what caliber the Repub candidate is?

Yes, I do think the President and the Republican party are way over their collective heads. The philosophies are not what we need to move ahead as a country. We aren't in the 19th century any longer, so let's stop thinking as if we were.

If not, how do you feel about this news? And how do you justify his competence based on this?

I feel that a hurricane hit the Gulf coast, killed folks, destroyed a lot of stuff and displaced a lot of people. I feel that this was one possible disaster among a roomful of possible disasters. I feel that 20-20 hindsight is a universal human trait. I feel that a political philosophy that tries to shrink government for the people in favor of enlarging government for the corporations is the wrong government to have.

Meanwhile, the Repubs have won the elections. What comes of that situation is nearly everyone's problem while a few get the benefits. Trickle down? Fear of bears? Go figger.

So here are the figgering equations:

Competence != Electable

Money + Spin + Opposition Bashing + Appeals to Emotion + Outright Lies + Demonstrated Redub Loyalty = Electable

Incompetence = Appointable

It doesn't matter what I think or feel. What matters is how Republicans think and feel. They are the ones with the power, all of it. I'm just an observer until that power structure changes, which I doubt it will. All I can ask is:

May I have a better job from you, sir?

This is a non-story in my eyes (read: it's all over the cable shows).

First off, of course the levies could fail. They were designed to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, not a Cat 4 or 5. In that sense, ANY Cat 4 or 5 has a chance to breech the levies. Then again, if they were designed correctly, then they might withstand a Cat 4 or 5, there are just no guarantees.

The fact that someone mentioned to Bush that the levies might be breached by a Cat 5 like Katrina does not surprise me nor does it change what happened afterwards. The storm hit, the levies initially held, we breathed a collective sigh of relief and then the levies failed.

Don't you think officials in New Orleans knew what a Cat 5 would do? What about this story from NPR from 2002.

This article put the chances at one in six that this would happen within 50 years. It was also from 2002.

Building a levy system to protect NOLA from a Cat 5 would probably take 20 years (not to mention billions of dollars) to complete. Obviously, we should blame Reagan for this.

So we always knew this was a possibility. This isn't anything shocking or new.

What if you had a boss and he told everyone his company finally finished the big project and told everyone to go home...except the project really wasn't completed? Does that make him incompetent? Yes.
What if you had a boss and he invited all his competetion to come over and attack you? Would that make him incompetent? Yes.

That statement makes it clear that you condemn Bush for his cutting of the levee upgrade funding, right?

Then why did Bush say later that it was not foreseeable? His comments after the disaster implied he had no idea it was even a possibility.

Based on the video, Bush didn't apparently even ask what could be done to prevent damage or death.

QUOTE

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?

No. the people who ARE incompetent and the morons in New Orleans and Louisiana. EVERYONE in the state and the government knew the levies could NOT stand up to a category 4 storm. And while FEMA was far from perfect the disaster was made far worse by the incompetent fools like the mayor of New Orleans who waited too long to order an evacuation and then moved people directly into the path of the storm!

If you saw the recent documentary on this issue you know that the National Weather people were in New Orleans a year prior with simulations showing the danger and trying to prepare New Orleans for the worst. They were nearly completely ignored.
Nagey, the fool, did not even know that he had the authority to order an evacuation. Th governor did not mobilized the guard to get people out of the city soon enough, the levies that were there were built incorrectly.

It goes on and on. To try to blame Bush for this is just stupid.

The design teams for the New Orleans canals instead chose to drive steel sheet pilings through the center of the levees to form a wall between the canal and the outside of the levee. But to be effective in the porous soils of the former swamp, the walls would have to be driven at least as deep as the canal bottom, which was 18.5 feet below sea level.
"The soil cross sections make it obvious there are layers of pervious soils below that 17-foot level that would be very susceptible to seepage and failure," Wolff said. "That means someone, somewhere during the design process, made design assumptions and design calculations to let them, and their group, decide they would be OK without those layers cut off -- and they were wrong."


http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/ind...97595482770.xml

Well, if your point is that cable news covers a lot of non-news events purely for ratings or sensationalism or entertainment, we are in agreement on that point. But, if you are saying that cable news shows never cover real news, therefore if a story is all over the cable shows it must not be news, then your reasoning is faulty.



The above statement is a classic example of the straw man logical fallacy. You are saying, "Why should anybody be surprised that the president was briefed on this. Of course he should have been briefed that the levies might be breached! Anyone who believes that the president wasn't briefed or should not have been briefed is just plain wrong!"

You have created an argument that didn't exist, made your case for this non-existent argument, then tried to conclude that you have disproved the real argument. In fact, you did not even address the real argument at all.

The real argument is outlined below.

From the transcript and AP story:

MAX MAYFIELD, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER:
The problem that we're going to have here — remember, the winds go counter-clockwise around the center of the hurricane. So if the really strong winds clip Lake Poncatrain, that's going to pile some of that water from Lake Poncatrain over on the south side of the lake. I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levies will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very grave concern. source


The president didn't ask a single question during the briefing but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."


- Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans.


IN SUMMARY

1. The president was told that the levees were a "very, very grave concern".
2. He asked no questions about this grave concern at that briefing.
3. He said, "We are fully prepared."
4. The levees were topped and breached.
5. His response to the breach was late and inadequate.
6. He then claimed four days later, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

The issue presented for debate, the issue that you side-stepped was:
Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?

Another obvious issue is the presidents honesty and/or credibility ("I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."). I would be delighted if you would address either of the above real, debatable issues, without creating any more straw men in the process.

Congratulations Amlord. You just illustrated my Minimize Mode Theory (MMT). Contrary to your thinking, this is a big story, especially when taken with other things the Bush administration has mishandled. In the words of an old Jimmy Reed blues number, the administration "can run, but it sho [sure] can't hide."

So lying about an affair is news-worthy, but lying about knowing how bad Katrina was going to be is not? I simply don't follow your logic AMLord. I'll be the first to readily admit you are a very smart, well-thought out, and original debater, but this reply not only completely ignores the crux of the issue, but fully demonstrates a blind faith for an administration that's sinking fast.



The conservative responses in this thread completely side-stepped the issue for debate: why was the response from the federal government after Katrina hit so slow, when they were briefed in clear, understandable fashion the implications of a levee breach two-days before the hurricane hit? We already have a consensus that Brownie was completley incompetent, but now it's looking an awful lot of this responsibility falls on a completely informed Chertof and Bush.

Why does Bush say they are ready, if they weren't? This doesn't show the markings to me of a good leader. Could you at least concede that point? He really seems like someone along for the ride, not a world leader.

Who is blaming Bush for not reinforcing the levies? I'll take a line from a prior thread, don't build strawmen.

On the other hand, are you saying Bush shares no responsibility for the disaster?

The question is of Bush's competence. He did nothing, he asked nothing, and he IS THE PRESIDENT. He's not the donut delivery guy.

I could make a giant list of failures of incompetence starting with appointing Brownie in the first place. This new bit of information just emphasizes what a complete and utter incompetent individual Bush is. He's someone who probably shouldn't even be using heavy machinery much less leading the free world.

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?

Well, yes, but I have thought this from the time he was just a presidential candidate, way back when. This is just another in a string of "bad intel" if you believe the president. In reality, much like the rest of his presidency, he appears to have been given the information, disregarded, then lied about or forgot that he had ever been told. Either way, it speaks greatly to his incompetence.


However, to be fair, the Katrina debacle was an utter failure on all levels of the government and the people. I can't, in good conscience, blame Bush alone for this.

Upon reflection, Katrina is one of the great media circuses of our time. Katrina was a natural disaster that had unprecedented news coverage and a faux outrage by journalists. It’s somewhat ironic that Bush has received the bad end of the sensationalistic news coverage that Fox has helped create.

What exactly did the Federal Government not do before the storm’s arrival that would have changed things? Was it the Federal Government’s responsibility to evacuate the entire town of New Orleans? People have been talking about the eventual New Orleans disaster for decades and it turns out the levels failed in a hurricane that was not as strong as initially reported. Does the City or State bare any responsibility for making sure people were out of harm’s way.



There was a great deal written and reported in the immediate aftermath of the storm that created a false impression of the actual events. Has there been any attempt by the media to make corrections for this? I know in politics “perception is reality,” but it appears that is the new standard in journalism.

All that aside, I am not minimizing the severity of the disaster. Many people lost their lives because of the storm, but not because of the Federal Government.

Let's examine point 6:

Where did it say that the levees would be breached or that there was grave danger of them being breached?

Ah yes, it didn't. What was discussed here was the topping of the levees which is a problem, but not one of the magnitude of a breach. Topping causes some flooding while a breach (in a levee system) means the whole city levels out at a common "sea level".

This briefing focused on the effects of current and winds on the levees: such conditions would cause localized flooding.


Transcript courtesy of the NY Times

NO mention of breaching the levees at all, simply topping. So when Bush said a few days later that he did not anticipate levee breaches, he isn't lying since no one briefed him on it.

The transcript from the 29th has some inaudible reference to breaches, but it seems to be mentioned in passing, not in urgency. 29th transcript

I find NBC's story on this funny: Video shows Bush got explicit Katrina warning


I guess my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be... I did not see any reference to breaches, only topping of the levees. And if federal disaster officials used "dramatic and agonizing terms" don't you think they knew of the potentials? How is Bush culpable here? Isn't it the FEMA director's job to manage disasters?

Bush's big mistake was trusting Brown and Chertoff to be able to handle this situation. It seemed like the Feds had a good grasp of the potentials (for example, the Mississippi flooding which was much more devastating than anything in New Orleans). But bureaucracy has this curious tendency to be bureaucratic--proving once again why the government should not be relied upon to solve problems.



Again, what implications do you see about a levee breach? It wasn't until the 30th that the breach was evident. I think there was a premature sigh of relief when the levees appeared to hold on the 29th.

Why did Bush say they were ready? Because the briefings told him they were ready. Is there some way that Bush should have known otherwise besides the FEMA?

Here is another example of faulty reasoning, in this case the fallacy of the false choice. You are saying that either Bush is incompetent, or the "morons in New Orleans and Louisiana" are incompetent. No other choices. Either one is true or the other is.

Well, you have ignored many other choices, including the obvious choice, that all were incompetent and all should share in the blame.

quote=Ted,Mar 2 2006, 10:33 AM]
[b]

What you failed to mention was that White House representatives were part of those 270 federal, state, and local participants at those simulations--and took the data back to brief the White House staff. If the White House didn't also "nearly completely" ignore this information, Bush or his staff would have been aware that the category 4 or 5 storm was beyond the levy design limits. Even if his staff completely ignored this prior information, we now know Bush was personally briefed on the levees prior to the hurricane landfall.

With this in mind, explain how a competent leader can state, four days later, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees".

Do you consider this competent leadership?

That has already been covered quite extensively Nemov, how quickly we forget. I'd suggest taking a read of this topic which deals specifically with this and you'll likely find a lot more information in the huge katrina topic we had before that. I'll copy some of the relevant issues into this thread.

The Department of Homeland Security was specifically created with this in mind. From their emergencies and disasters page:


See also the National Response Plan which lists among its objectives:


And lets consider some budget information:


So basically Nemov, the DHS has been given this very mission and they failed miserably at it. They couldn't have prevented the storm obviously, but their response in the immediate aftermath and the weeks following was pathetic.

This whole thing is typical, we have video proof that Bush knew about the deadly potential of this storm well before it hit and yet the response was incredibly slow and pathetic. Even with video proof we have Bush loyalists like Amlord lining up to defend him (and I'm sure that the list of usual suspects will join in soon enough). It really is beyond belief, I mean is the guy going to have to kill someone on national TV for some people to finally place criticism where it is due?

Bush created this massive DHS and he turned FEMA's mission over to them. Their mission is probably even more important when you consider that in all likelihood we'll be responding to a terrorist attack rather than preventing it. What happens if the terrorists strike in an area of the country that doesn't have competent leaders and good resources? I'd say we got a good taste of it with Katrina. I'd also say based on documented video proof the answer to the question for debate is pretty clear - yes he is incompetent.

True enough, CJ. But you have not examine HOW the DHS goes about accomplishing these objectives.

Local/Federal Response Strategies & Coordination Structures



First thing on the page: emphasis on Local Response.

The DHS helps train local responders but it is local responders who are expected to respond.



A hurricane is not a low probability event. Hence, it does not fit into this category until the storm obviously overwhelms local resources. By definition, one cannot know if an incident meets the criterion of "extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption" until such things occur.

It would follow that it is the responsibility of DHS to ensure that local responders are prepared to respond to a disaster. I'd say that in major metro areas like NY they probably do and the local responders probably are prepared. However, it has also been documented that in virtually every other part of the country DHS simply fails in their mission and they don't adequately equip the local responders and these local responders don't have the budget to do it themselves.

You can pass plenty of blame around there but the important thing to remember is that Bush made DHS responsible for all of this and tossed billions upon billions their way. If local responders are not equipped to deal with disaster then it is ultimately the fault of DHS. Furthermore DHS is also supposed to have contingency plans in place and they clearly failed in those.


I think you are misreading that Amlord.


I don't know how you can say that a category 5 hurricane bearing down directly on New Orleans does not meet these criteria - especiall when NOAA and every scientist out there was telling Bush this was going to be a huge disaster, it is even on video!

Katrina met all these criteria and more. Based on this plan it implies that the government has resources and people ready to move at a moment's notice to bring aid. So either those resources and people don't exist or the call wasn't made to use them with 2 days of forewarning - either way it is gross incompetence.

CJ, no one would ever consider you a "usual suspect" would they?

I have a lot of problems with Bush, but hurricane response is not one of them. I live in Florida and there have been about 9 hurricanes that have effected our area the past two years. People in Port Charlotte are still waiting to get repairs, but I don’t think that’s Bush’s fault either. Everyone knew the storm was serious before it hit. The fear was a direct hit on New Orleans, which did not happen. In fact, the storm weakened before it slammed the coast. I think the correct strength of the storm in the New Orleans area was a CAT 1. The levies were supposed to be able to survive a CAT 3.

FEMA's primary role is to develop and implement catastrophe plans. It then trains local responders to implement the plans. FEMA is not a first responder.

Curiously, FEMA did a hurricane evacuation training session in July 2004 source. Unfortunately, the local guy in charge was not in charge in 2005--since he had been indicted for embezzling FEMA funds. link

Somehow New Orleans was able to train for the evacuation of 1 million residents, but when the stuff hit the fan, they failed to execute.

According to their conclusions:



Seems like FEMA was within its timeline. Unfortunately, supplies at the Superdome ran out on the second day. FEMA sent supplies to Texas and Georgia on Sunday, before the storm hit. Brownie arrived in Baton Rouge the morning the storm hit.

Let me leave it at this: FEMA is not a first responder. Plans were in place, but were not executed well at any level (federal, state, or local).

First, you create a distinction without a difference. David Sills, chief of emergency management at the Mississippi Valley Division of the Army Corps of engineers said, “Anytime you overtop a levy, you run the risk of it being breached.”
Source: Federal Times

Second, you paint a huge distinction between levee breaching and "simply topping". You say topping merely causes "some flooding". I'd like to remind you of the simulation Hurricane Pam, which was category 3, not the 4-5 that Katrina was during Bush's briefing. Pam also did not breach the levees, as Katrina did. You would like us to think this only caused "some flooding".

Well, here is the story: In many respects, the simulated Hurricane Pam bore striking similarities with the real Katrina. Pam pounded New Orleans with 120 mph winds, destroyed more than 500,000 buildings and left 30 million cubic yards of debris and 237,000 cubic yards of household hazardous waste in its wake. It forced the evacuation of more than 1 million residents. Pam’s storm surge caused extensive flooding, but it stopped short of breaching the levees.


Oh, by the way, this "simple topping" still resulted in 15 to 20 feet of water in the city.

Third, Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center told the president that just the topping of the levees was "obviously a grave,grave concern."


Yet, Bush asked no questions about this "grave, grave concern". Your logic would have us believe that "simply topping" would cause only "some flooding". Hurricane Pam showed that this flooding was city-wide at 15-20 feet. An Army Corps expert said topping always threatens breaching.

But Bush only heard "topping", so you say he didn't lie. Maybe so.

But, don't you think a competent leader would have raised some questions about the grave, grave concern?

You would like us to believe a competent leader would have remained silent.

We just don't believe you when faced with these facts.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the people doing the briefing were competent enough about the areas of expertise and their grasp of the English language to be able to express the situation thoroughly?

And he didn't remain silent. He explained that they were prepared. And they were, only NO/LA never asked, then they waffled, then they wailed...

I've seen this "OMG! He never asked any questions!" thing too many times to count in the past couple days. It's truly amazing how the left is grasping for straws.

Were they? As far as action goes I think the case against Michael Brown is pretty solid and if one wanted to make one against DHS head Michael Chertoff that would be easy enough as well.

But yes as far as informing everyone of the situation I think that was done adequately, but that isn't what is being debated here. The problem is precisely that all of these people, including Bush, FEMA and DHS were informed of all of this and they didn't act.


Very good, he said he was prepared. Too bad the actual facts don't support that assertion. And you are factually incorrect, LA did ask for help in a timely fashion. On Friday, August 26th Gov Blanco declared a state of emergency placing LA under the command of the director of the state office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.


I'd say you are the one grasping at straws, have you seen the latest approval polls for Bush?

FoxNews: 39
Gallup: 38
Q-poll: 36
CBS: 34

The amazing thing is the lengths to which people like yourself will deny any and all facts of the situation to defend our president.

No, the really amazing thing is that in spite of a president who is floundering after facing some of the most difficult situations in our times, the Democrats are unable to make any gains. In spite of the best efforts of the left and the media, Bush still has better favorables than the media itself

By fail, you mean breach. Because, a levy that has been topped, but remains intact, has not failed.

So, you really said:

1. First off, of course the levies could breach.
2. They were designed to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, not a Cat 4 or 5.
3. We always knew this was a possibility.

Then you said:

4. (In the briefing to Bush there was) NO mention of breaching the levees at all, simply topping.
5. So when Bush said a few days later that he did not anticipate levee breaches, he isn't lying since no one briefed him on it.


I see. So, your logic is:

We always knew the levies could breach. They were only designed for a Cat 3, not the Cat 4 or 5 that existed when Bush was briefed. Of course they could breach. But, NO one briefed Bush on breaches. Therefore, he just didn't anticipate something that we always knew. And, because of this, he isn't lying. He just didn't know what we always knew. And, he had no ability to anticipate what we always knew. Unless he was briefed.


So, you conclude that Bush didn't lie. He just didn't know that the levies could breach, as we always knew. Nor could he anticipate the levies breaching, as we all could. Unless someone told him.

I can accept your argument. Bush did not lie. He is just pitifully incompetent.

Your logic is sound.

I gotta go with Amlord on this one. This is just another example of the Rathergate syndrome. The meeting was originally covered by the press, and transcripts released within a day.

So now an AP reporter who used to work for 60 minutes comes out with an "exclusive"...

Get real

Is this thread about Bush competency in general or his competency in this particular levy issue?
I read an article on CNNFN this morning which brings the issue of Bush's competency in a different light. The article discusses Bush's appointees to the Federal Reserve - a body which can bring an entire US economy into recession with just one unnecessary rate hike:



Must be a coincedence that a nominee to a Federal Reserve, young, inexperienced, and without qualifications, happens to be a son-in-law of a major Republican contributor.

I think Bush's presidency has been plagued with certain challenges that no other president has ever been faced with. Examples being 9/11, Katrina, extreme hurricane seasons, Tsunami, war in Iraq. Many of the major events that have occured during is Presidency have happened on U.S. soil with 24 hour media capturing EVERYTHING. I think Bush, more than any other President, has had his every move monitored and scrutinized.
I do not think that he is incompetent.

This is not a debate about the media. By trying to change the topic, you are commiting the fallacy of the Red Herring.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. source

The debate is about Bush's competence, or lack thereof.

If you don't wish to address the specific points that place his competence in question, that's fine. If you wish to start a new thread about the ills of the media, that is fine. If you wish to challenge the information suggesting his incompetence, that is also fine.

What is not fine is trying to challenge claims of incompetence of the president by raising issues about the media.

I'll give you 9/11. That was somewhat unique and Bush responded to that magnificently if you ask me.

But Katrina? Other presidents have had to respond to natural disasters - wildfires, earthquakes, tornados, etc. Other presidents have responded to the attack at Pearl Harbor, civil wars, world wars, etc. Obviously, Katrina ended up being more devastating in terms of natural disasters, but it's not like anybody could have been surprised by it. Bush has bloated the government beyond comprehension and FEMA's slow lumbering response should have been expected.

What did the tsunami have to do with Bush?

And as far as the war in Iraq, invading unilaterally was a choice - not a necessity and certainly not a last resort. His policy was regime change in Iraq, but he didn't care whether or not the Iraqis did it themselves (which was the intent of the 1998 bill).

My point being, is you've provided one thing he's done right and absently defended the rest. What about out of control spending? Leaking classified info for political gain? A government 30% bigger than before Bush took office? Alienating all our allies who have money and battle ready troops able to help fight the GWOT? Pandering to unions to impose steel tariffs? Granting amnesty to the Mexicans and Muslims sneaking into our country? Promising a $200 billion dollar handout to Louisiana?

But the bottom line is, you can't divide your country and the world, allow your popularity to hover lower than 40% perpetually, and expect to move anything important to us forward. You can't screw up this bad by accident. Unfortunately, this level of incompetence hasn't peaked. He has 3 more years of damage to do.

To the contrary, The link at the beginning was used as a premise for the argument. If the premise is founded on faulty evidence, it follows that the argument that follows is faulty, it's straight forward logic.

If A then B, if A is False, B may, or may not, be False, but it's certainly not proven True...

You are right. The debate topic also included a question about the news coverage:

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?
If not, how do you feel about this news? And how do you justify his competence based on this?

In my haste to respond, I committed the fallacy of Not Reading the Entire Debate Topic:

This fallacy usually occurs when a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to a response, and the focus to the original question is lost. This fallacy occurs with some frequency, but it is still a favorite among debaters, as it usually fosters generous amounts of mirth, merryment, and jocularity by all when discovered!

Firstly, the only thing that has happened to Bush that has few paralells (not none, but few) is 9/11. Nothing else that has happened in his term has been in any way unusual or more than the standard President has to deal with.

And to say that Bush Jr. has had his life scrutinised more than any other is absurd. Not only has his life NOT been scutinised more than any other, it hasn't even been scrutinised more than his predecessor.


Oh, and saying Bush can't be held responsible because of the rigours of his presidency, and then bringing up his attack on Iraq as an example, is like watching a man who likes to hit himself on the head with a hammer, then justifying his actions by saying :"yes, but he can't be held responsible for hitting himself on the head with the hammer, look, the poor man is suffering from a head wound!"

IF you use Iraq as an example of a situation Bush JR cannot be expected to deal with because of its high stress, then BY DEFINITION you are saying he has gotten himself in ovr his head.


Besides, the staggering and ongoing damage he has done to the US economy, the rolling back of civil liberties and the vast expansion of the size and power of government (all things in direct opposition to what 'Republican' means) cannot be blamed on an Indian Ocan tsunami.

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?
No. As someone earlier stated, I have lots of problems with Bush, and hurricane relief is not one of them. Mississippi and Florida seem to be faring just a bit better.

If not, how do you feel about this news?
When the news is written by people who hate you, it's generally not the most favorable coverage. Couple of examples:
- George W Bush is in India, a country that has gone from colony to acknowledged nuclear power with a middle class of 300 million in 60 years. News coverage has focused on the protests almost to the exclusion of the content of the visit.
- In Iraq, sectarian violence (now basically over) has been over-reported so badly that our major media is basically wishing for civil war on the front pages. General Casey said yesterday that, for example, of 8 mosques damaged, only one had as much as a broken window. This same media continually omits the name "Al Qaeda" of the people who are actually committing violent acts.

Lastly, as Amlord has noted, the AP mis-stated what the tape said, just like they did when the storm hit. Being reporters, they knew darn well that 'overrun' is not 'breach' and finally had to issue a retraction.

The original AP story and some here made a huge point of Bush not asking questions.

Does anyone here believe that, had he asked those questions 10 or 12 hours earlier, less people would have been killed in New Orleans?

And how do you justify his competence based on this?
I don't have to justify Bush's competency. Nor does anyone here.


You and BoF have both posted Bush's poll numbers. Is concern with the approval ratings of someone not running for election "grasping for straws?"

Vermillion, you seem to dislike our President to the point where you can't use his name or title properly. As such, I'm going to try and respond in kind. This will have the added benefit of educating we Americans as to the names of various Canadian luminaries! Here is today's installment.

Jean Chrétien is a poopyhead.

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?
Completely incompetent, no. Misinformed, misguided and misleading, yes. But speaking in general of his presidency. Bush is not a conservative, and many who voted for him on the grounds that he would uphold conservative ideals, are now wishing they could retract their vote. I am anxiously awaiting 2008, in the hopes that since a Libertarian won't come close to winning, that at least the Republican Party will finally break out of their corporatist and elitist malaise and nominate a true conservative.
The verbal gaffes and policy faux pas that Bush has committed will record him as the most incompetent president in recent memory (maybe tied with Carter), at least until the Democrats elect their version of GW.

If not, how do you feel about this news? And how do you justify his competence based on this?
The response to Katrina was no more Bush's fault than Nagin's and Blanco's. While the left will continue to beat this drum in the hopes of ginning up more hatred of Bush before the '06 and '08 elections, the recent videotape of Bush's conversations with LA officials is a non story. It has to be, to be fair and consistent. The MSM has devoted nearly no air time to Gov. Blanco's videotaped report to the White House stating:

Link

Gov. Blanco's incompetence was so severe and so apparent that Lt. Gen. Honore literally made her cry when he arrived and took stock of the situation.

But this whole charade will be conveniently forgotten when a Democrat president fumbles a disaster response.........

1.) No. I think he has incompetent people under him and in some capacities pulling the strings but personally I do not feel that this president is as incompetent as some people would like to have us believe. I think that to same measure of a degree the president is in over his head but I feel that it is more like he has simply surrounded himself with stupidity.

A president is not expected to know or do everything in this nation; without people he can trust to act wisely and efficiently, not only is his legacy but this nation will fall beyond repair.

He has also not been Prime Minsister for some years, but whatever. Bet you can't name the current PM without looking him up...
(Though to be fair, few could...)

I'm sorry, you are right, people who Call Bush Jr. by the name Bush Jr MUST be overwhelmed with hatred for him, such can only be the onlye explanation for such a horrendous insult, there really can be no other motivation for so low and devious a name-calling..

People like his mother and father and brothers, for example, who called him Bush Jr for the first three or four decades of his life. He rebranded himself without the '.jr' because he and his team estimated that the public ould not vote for a 'Junior'.

However, he is the SON of George Bush Senior, he was called George Bush Junior by his family and friends for the majority of his life... He called HIMSELF that while at university... guess he must be self-loathing, right?


I'm sorry, could you please re-explain the point how calling him that can 'ONLY' be the result of my obvious horrendous blinding hatred coming to the fore? Or was that entire diatribe just a shot in the dark for no apparent reason?


Oh, and by the way, feel free to deal with my points rather than launching into a polemic about syntax, in particular when the syntax is perfectly correct.

Surely carlitoswhey you are politically sophisticated enough to know CJ and I are not “grasping at strews.”

Regardless of whether Bush is eligible for reelection, he is still head of the Republican Party.

You need to look beneath the surface of the polls.

The latest poll recorded by Real Clear Politics is one by USA Today/CNN Gallup for February 28-March 1.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/President...04/bush_ja.html

Bush is down 22 points on job approval and in the midst of a seven or eight month slump.

If you click the link for USA Today/CNN Gallup we find some interesting information in the sub-polls.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-03-02-poll.htm

Item 3A is interesting. Per the poll in question, 53% to 39% now lean toward Democratic candidates. I don’t know if Democrats will recapture either house of Congress, but I am confident we will pick up seats in both. I’m equally confident that the Republican revolution, ushered in by Newt Gingrich in 1994, has reached its peak and is in decline. I'm glad I didn’t vote for Bush. If I had, I would probably have the same feeling I had as a kid, when I put a quarter in the pinball table and the threshold for tilt was ever so touchy. Bush is running a tilted presidency and it can’t help Republican candidates in 2006. I can just see Ken Mehlman trying to sell Republican candidates based on Bush lack of popularity and the chicanery of Republican crooks like Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff. Note: I've limited this to those who have entered a plea of guilty or been convited and sentenced, but I am sure there are more to come. Further, I think the polls tell us that the tactics that have worked so well for Karl Rove in the past aren’t working anymore. Finally, the public is seemingly aware of his crap.

Item 5 in the sub-poll is also interesting. Bush has been rated highest as a defender against terror. Seemingly he’s losing or has lost that edge. His “war on terror” figures are now 47% approve-49% oppose.

Item 5B reports that 35% of the respondents disapproved of Bush’s handling of Iraq while 64% disapproved.

With Bush’s presidency in such shambles, selling the program he outlined in the State of the Union is much less likely to pass Congress.

Sorry, carlitoswhey, but posting the poll numbers is not grasping at straws.



As Vermillion pointed out, the Tsunami is totally irrelevant and the media was far harder on Clinton and even Gore and Kerry in the 2000 and 2004 races. Good God, why did anyone think Kerry’s windsurfing newsworthy.

Further Iraq is Bush baby and I think any hope of creating a democracy there is akin to a still birth. Bush should be judged harshly for getting us in the 2006 elections and his legacy will be marred by the fiasco.



There’s an old story VDemonsthenes that Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, “the buck stops here.” If there are incompetent people under Bush, then he is incompetent for appointing them in the first place and even more incompetent for not removing them from office.

What you have written makes no sense at all. Abnegating responsibility to incompetent subordinates is, in itself, incompetence.

If Bush can't get a handle on his own administration, he should resign.

I chose an ex-PM because I actually respect your current choice of PM - a conservative from Alberta. I know that it was a complicated confluence of events that tipped the scales his way, but a great choice nonetheless. Stephen Harper - *Not* a poopyhead. If you continue to use Bush jr / Jr. / JR I will be forced to call Trudeau a commie-loving so-and-so. And then UltimateJoe will come to my house and beat me up, so please let's cut this out.


Well, since I said "dislike" I don't think I meant "overwhelmed with hatred," but if the shoe fits... So, you're telling me that Barbara, George HW, Jeb and Neil Bush referred to George W Bush as "Bush Jr." I'd really love for you to cite a source for this. Preferably not Maureed Dowd.


Oh, I see - it's George Bush Junior. Got it. And your reason for using this name which he dislikes is what exactly?



OK, Professor, please let me know which example of your syntax is "perfectly correct." If it's A, but not B or C, then "perfectly correct" is a bit of a stretch, non?

A) Bush Jr.
B) Bush JR
C) Bush Jr

And I'm glad you noticed that I didn't address your "points." My "point" was that gratuitiously insulting the President of the United States throughout your post undermines your ability to credibly score said "points." Get it?


Quick - somebody tell Ken Mehlman! Just kidding. Yes, I can look beneath the surface of the polls, and yes, you can tell me that Dems are going to gain seats (as the opposition party just about always does in mid-terms), but really "anti Bush" didn't even work in 2004, so why keep it rolling as your primary rallying point in 2006, when he's not running? That's all I'm getting at. I'd much rather hear 9 months of actual, positive Democratic plans, than another 9 months of negatives about the current president. And believe it or not, I'm one Bush voter that would love a credible, competent opposition party to force our current corrupt Congress to act fiscally conservative and wake up this President in terms of spending.

No, I don't. It is his name, it is not an insult. You say he does not like it much, well he didn't mind it in University, when he called himself that, but whatever.

But let me make MY point then. I refer to Bush Junior and Bush Senior. I use .Jr and .Sr as a way of distinguishing them. So, it might interest you to know, does a huge percentage of the planet whose names are the same as their fathers.

George Bush Jr as a name was used quite frequently in the media as well before he became President, look it up, lots of old articles using the name. George Bush Jr on Wikepedia directs you to the current president of the United States. Nobody has ever messaged me in confusion asking me who I am referring to, or not recognising the name.

I have been calling him that ever since I started on this board, in countless posts, for over three years. You are the first person to comment on it, or tell me that by 'gratuitously insulting him', which is what you refer to as calling him by his name, nobody will give me any credibility.

Well, three years of nobody ever making an issue of it until now says you are wrong. The fact that Bush Jr. is frequently called by all sorts of insulting names on this board, and you choose to focus on the fact that call him by his name, says you are wrong. The sheer and utter irrelevance of this entire line of conversation says not only are you wrong, but seriously, who cares?

If you are genuinely and seriously SO INCENSED and DISGUSTED by my referring to the man by his name, that you cannot seriously bring yourself to actually address any points made, then not only are you the first and only with that problem, but frankly I'm not so worried about missing what you would have said.

I mean come ON here! The leader of this entire thread is 'Is this guy capable of running a popsicle stand?

And you choose the fact that I call him by his name to waste time ranting about, as though you cannot believe anyone would be this insulting to the sitting president? And I'm supposed to take your 'warning' about my 'credibility' seriously?

Nine months is a rather premature assumption considering we haven't finished the primaries yet. Just this week, Karl Rove tried to call out Hillary Clinton, that is, engage her in the debate on his time table not hers. It doesn't seemed to have worked.

Quite frankly carlitoswhey, I don't think Democrats are or should be too concerned about what you want to hear or when you want to hear it.

Talk about a loaded question akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?".

The president was elected twice. That's quite an accomplishment. He inherited both a recession and an active plan to committ the worst terrorist attack in US history on American soil.

Our economy is growing and the terrorists are on the run. The Taliban regime who came to power during Clinton is out. Saddam who violated the UN sanctions and even tried to kill a US president during Clinton is out and on trial. Countless terrorists have been killed or imprisoned and their infrastructure dealt a severe blow. They are on the defensive for a change, not the offensive.

On top of those huge obstacles, Bush has faced the most vicious political attack campaign in modern American history.

He's done a fine job given the circumstances. If you want to blame someone for Katrina, blame Mother Nature. If you want to blame someone for the aftermath, you can start with the local and state officials who bungled the initial response. The federal government then followed suit. But keep in mind that the level of the disaster, and number of square miles impacted, the task was unprecidented. But, blame is fun and blame is convenient. It's more appealing to "Blame Bush" than to put any responsibility on the residents who refused to leave a huge storm and who then looted, fired at rescue workers, and generally created mayhem in the storm's aftermath. Calling for such personal accountibility would certainly upset the left and people like Kanye West.

If Bush has failed, it has been on the side of his idealism. He truly believes in the power of the human spirit and believes, down to his core, that people are fundamentally the same and that everyone yearns to be free, have personal liberty, and live in peace with their families. That has been his primary problem in my view since I hold a darker view of human beings and human nature.

Is the Bush administration incompetent? Compared to which administration? I see them as more competent than Bush's father's administration and the second Reagan administration. I see them FAR more competent than either Carter (a debacle) or Clinton which spent most of their energy managing the self-inflicted scandal cleanup caused by the perpetual adolescent in charge.

The Bush administration is very competent. That's why he's so hated by the left. He's managed to get the majority of his initiatives implemented. He passed his tax cuts, his education bill, the prescription drug plan, and a variety of free trade initiatives. He's also taken a very aggressive stance against terrorists and terrorist enabling regimes (like Iraq) and managed to get both the UN and the democrat leaders to sign on (initially, until the going got tough that is) to the effort. If Bush were incompetent, he'd be tolerated by the left in this country because he would not have gotten the Patriot Act passed, pursued a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, managed to cut taxes, continued our free trade path, and put two conservative jurists on the USSC. The measure of a republican president's competence is inversely proportion to the level of hatred displayed for him by the left. I haven't seen the pathological level of hatred exhibited since.... well, Reagan, and for the exact same reasons.

In spite of his idealism, I still think that history will view Bush as a visionary who was responsible for more fundamental change (for the better) than any president since Reagan.

He didn't really inherit a recession you know, this is an oft repeated comment by the right, is suppose used to try and justify Bush Jr.'s economic failings. There was a tiny recession in 2001, starting in March, several months after Bush Jr' has taken over, which ended in November. This recession was small, only notwirthy because it followed 9 years of unprecidented and spectacular growth under the previous administration.



Really? Not according to the IISS or Jane's defence, both of which say that Al Quaida is stronger now than it has ever been, with more recruits, equipment than they had even before 9/11. This is largely due to a combination of the US deprioritising the war on terror in favour of the war on Iraq, and the disintegration of Iraq providing new equipment and recruits in a nation from whence there had previously been none.

As to Afghanistan, the Taliban is no longer the national government, but again thanks to the deprioritising of Afghanistan in favour of Iraq, the nation is now under the control of sectarian warlords, most of whom have re-imposed Taliban-style law (in particular towards women) with no loyalty to the central government. Opium production this year fir the first time exceeded pre-invasion levels. Right now Afghanistan is hardly a success story.



Yes he has. Right now the liberated country is tottering on the edge of a bloody civil war, and could go either way. The cost so far has been 18,000 US casualties and an uncertain number of Iraq civilians dead, but estimates are high.



Well, actually again according to the IISS and Jane’s defence the infrastructure of Al Qaida is better than it was before 9/11 because the US has given it both the chance to rest and the opportunity to recruit and equip from Iraq. The number of attacks on International targets have been increasing. So according to all the evidence, that assertion also is quite wrong.



I think not. Not only was it not the most vicious in history, it was not even more vicious than his predecessor. Heck, it was not even more vicious than the attacks on his opponent.



Firstly it was not at all unprecedented, larger regions were hot by powerful storms every year before this. And lets be clear, the fact that there is a lot of blame to go around to be sure, does not in any way mean that ‘because LOTS of people screwed up, Bush’s screw-ups don’t count’.



It is LAUGHABLE to blame Clinton for ‘spending time dealing with the scandal’. No question he is an idiot who cannot keep his pants on, but the Ken Starr investigation and all the claptrap that accompanied it was one of the most staggeringly wasteful and absurd, drawn out and divisive republican campaigns in recent history.



Like reforming social security? Like making the US safer? Like reducing the national debt?

In fact he has turned the largest surplus in real dollars in US history into the largest deficit in real dollars in US history, the economy is in serious trouble, and when the housing bubble bursts it will be a real crisis.

Apart from assert a lot of basic talking points, I don’t think your view of Bush Jr and the reality of his presidency have much in common.


You are correct about one thing though, the basic question of the thread is very one-sided…

You're saying this is a loaded question? No, it's not really. I'm asking "do you beat your wife?" not "why is Bush incompetent".


To be honest, I've yet to see any defense of his actions in this situation. I've heard about his love for the common man (giggle giggle), I've heard about how this is slander by the media without proving the information was incorrect.... but no defense for Bush saying "all is well" or "we didn't see this coming".

I'm still waiting for a decent attempt to defend such incompentency. Or at least admit that he was incompetent in this circumstance much less always been incompetent.

I always assumed the presidency was an easier job than it's appearing to be. Bush has shown just how very capable people like Clinton were as president.

That growth is far less spectacular when a number of corrections are factored in namely (1) the temporary job boom related to y2k which drove the tech sector and the economy (2) false earning statements in an environment of "everything goes" which came home to roost well after Clinton left office and (3) the rise of the internet which compounded the first two factors.

Clinton really had nothing to do with y2k. He had nothing to do with the internet. He DID create an environment, by example, that bad behavior, lies, and cheating were ok as long as the country (or the company) showed positive "results".

And yes, Bush DID inherit a recession. When January 2000 rolled around, the buying the tech sector STOPPED. Nasdaq lost 25% of its value in the second quarter and the DOW headed down dramatically too. I remember those times and people were saying (totally out of wishful thinking) that the economy would turn back around in the third or 4th quarter of 2000. It didn't. Why? Because of the DRIVERS that I pointed out. Without y2k and the huge amount of spending around that issue and the rapid rise of the internet infrastructure, Clinton's economy would have grown at a paltry rate. Don't you remember the democrat's claiming that "Bush was talking down the economy" in early 2001 only days after he took office as though the American economy can respond that way in a matter of days? I remember that as the first example of Bush bashing by the people who still haven't presented a viable economic or national security plan since January of 2001.

There was nothing spectacular about the "Clinton" economy. What occured had nothign to do with him and was a once-in-a-lifetime boom fueled by a perfect storm of economic factors.

At the end of the day, the "average" rate of unemployment under Bush has been LOWER than it was under Clinton. And, many of the "jobs" Clinton gladly took 100% of credit for were temporary jobs created to support the heavy demand for software and associated tech jobs related to y2k.

I thought I'd correct the record for you, Vermillion.

The temporary job boom related to y2k? Are you serious? A few thousand old COBOL programmers get rehired for a few months to solve the ultimate 'crisis that never was' and that is a job boom which explains the Clinton economy? Are you really that desperate to discredit the man?

I mean come on, be realistic. There was economic growth under Clinton because everybody was lying, and all because of him? Thats even worse than the Y2k sillyness! I mean don't get me wrong, there are a lot of reasons to dislike Clinton, and his inability to keep his pants on is certainly one of them. But I cannot imagine a better case study of just how utterly desperate the far-right is to discredit the man, how ANGRY they are about his economic success and high job ratings, that they will stoop to this level of petty schoolyarding to discredit everything he ever touched.

Say, I understand that if you watch the Zapruder film very carefully, Clinton shot JFK.




According to you, but not according to the rest of the world. According to CNN and the Economist, the US entered a mild recession only in March of 2001, which was over by November.

Oh, but by the way, even if your desperate point about Bush Jr. inheriting a recession WERE true, the 2001 downturn was MILD compared to the 1992 recession, which CLINTON inherited, and still managed to have 10 years of unprecidented growth under his leadership.

Despite inheriting a substantial recession, he managed not to pile on so much deficit spending that he actually endagngered the international value of the US dollar... only Bush Jr. has done that...

Hey, remember when 'republican' meant small government and fiscal conservativism? Oops...
-Largest deficit increase in