Yeah, it's GW's fault. No troops in Iraq = no wildfires.

Wasn't that one of his campaign planks?

 

"Read my lips... no new wildfires."

 

For the guy that caused Katrina, a wildfire is a piece of cake... heck, I could start a wildfire. :lol:

Yeah, it's GW's fault. No troops in Iraq = no wildfires.

 

Roll your eyes all you want to, but that isn't what he said. Perphaps you should watch it again. What part of National Guard troops that are in Iraq are not available for duty in California do you disagree with? With that said, I think that a visit by the President is a good idea. It won't put out any fires, but it is still a good thing to do. My guess is that aid to California will be much better than the aid to New Orleans for three reasons. First they will have learned from the Katrina mistakes, second, the local administration will be much better and third, the people affected in California will have much better personal resources.

Why doesn't GWB just conjure up another hurricane to put out the wildfires?

 

Do I have to think of everything?

Why are they using state prisoners to put out the fire and not illegal alien workers.

Roll your eyes all you want to, but that isn't what he said. Perphaps you should watch it again. What part of National Guard troops that are in Iraq are not available for duty in California do you disagree with? With that said, I think that a visit by the President is a good idea. It won't put out any fires, but it is still a good thing to do. My guess is that aid to California will be much better than the aid to New Orleans for three reasons. First they will have learned from the Katrina mistakes, second, the local administration will be much better and third, the people affected in California will have much better personal resources.

What part of typical Dem spin don't you get?

. First they will have learned from the Katrina mistakes, second, the local administration will be much better and third, the people affected in California will have much better personal resources.

 

I think you are right on here.

What part of typical Dem spin don't you get?

 

When you offer sarcasm to refute something that was not said in the first place, the BEST thing you could call it is spin. When I was in school the good sisters used a much harsher word to describe it.

I'll call it SPIN without attaching any sarcasm whatsoever.

 

Either this is a time of genuine emergency, where AMERICANS of all persuasions need to pull together and overcome this disaster and put all the fingerpointing aside until the situation is under control...

 

...or it's just another excuse for some to try to advance their political football a little further down the field. All the political finger pointing diminshes the the genuine and immediate need in California.

 

I'm not alone in my revulsion of empty suit political gamesmen in public office.

When you offer sarcasm to refute something that was not said in the first place, the BEST thing you could call it is spin. When I was in school the good sisters used a much harsher word to describe it.

Thank you Sister Mary TA.

To whom it may concern:

 

KNOCK IT OFF.

I took it as a combination of spin and legit criticism. It obviously was a chance to take a shot re: the National Guard. However, I think his concern that President Bush, Brownie, and the Feds didn't exactly bring a lot of help to New Orleans right away and that him showing up is secondary to what is needed is a fair question/complaint.

What part of typical Dem spin don't you get?

 

 

Democrats spin things. Republicans do too. Can you agree to that?

Democrats spin things. Republicans do too. Can you agree to that?

Without question, I just think the Dems are better at it.