Wednesday, August 31, 2005

What Did you Do About Hurricane Katrina?

Play politics? From the Latin poli=many, tics=blood suckers. See, it's all Bush's fault for not signing Kyoto. And Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, too.
Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.

Or try to help?
George Bush
The people in the affected regions expect the federal government to work with the state government and local government with an effective response. I have directed Secretary of Homeland Security Mike Chertoff to chair a Cabinet-level task force to coordinate all our assistance from Washington. FEMA Director Mike Brown is in charge of all federal response and recovery efforts in the field. I've instructed them to work closely with state and local officials, as well as with the private sector, to ensure that we're helping, not hindering, recovery efforts. This recovery will take a long time. This recovery will take years.

Our efforts are now focused on three priorities: Our first priority is to save lives. We're assisting local officials in New Orleans in evacuating any remaining citizens from the affected area. I want to thank the state of Texas, and particularly Harris County and the city of Houston and officials with the Houston Astrodome, for providing shelter to those citizens who found refuge in the Super Dome in Louisiana. Buses are on the way to take those people from New Orleans to Houston.

FEMA has deployed more than 50 disaster medical assistance teams from all across the country to help the affected -- to help those in the affected areas. FEMA has deployed more than 25 urban search and rescue teams with more than a thousand personnel to help save as many lives as possible. The United States Coast Guard is conducting search and rescue missions. They're working alongside local officials, local assets. The Coast Guard has rescued nearly 2,000 people to date

American Red Cross
When a disaster of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina strikes, people are eager to donate food, clothing or other goods to meet the needs of storm victims and help the affected families begin to replace what they have lost.

Samaritan's Purse
Two Samaritan's Purse Disaster Relief Units have reached Alabama and are assessing where best to work to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. The units initially will be based in Mobile and work westward into Mississippi and Louisiana as conditions permit.

Samaritan’s Purse is working with local churches and mobilizing hundreds of volunteer workers to help repair as many homes as possible. Two tractor-trailers loaded with emergency supplies and equipment will provide crews with chain saws and heavy equipment to remove fallen trees from houses and streets. Other teams will cover damaged roofs with weatherproof plastic. Generators can provide emergency electricity for the sick or elderly. Flooded houses can be pumped dry and cleaned of debris.

Salvation Army
Salvation Army centers in Mobile, Ala., and New Orleans, La., have become safe havens to 500 people who were evacuated due to the storms. The Salvation Army is providing shelter and food to evacuees, many of whom have no where else to go since the storm annihilated countless homes in its destructive path. Salvation Army canteens are serving hot meals to residents and first responders throughout Mobile and in Hattiesburg, Miss

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has announced a donation of $1 million to The Salvation Army and $1 million to The Red Cross to provide support for disaster relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina.

I guess your response says something about you, doesn't it?

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

No Connection Between 9-11 and Iraq?

The Weekly Standard has more on three Iraqi's who assisted the hijackers. And maybe we need a new commission to investigate the 9-11 commission. Here is more on Able Danger.
The more we know, the worse it looks for ex-President Clinton.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Speaking of Iraqi News Coverage...

I was checking Iraq the Model and found this comment. Seems like some (the majority?) Iraqis are quite glad the US is there. Will we hear about that in the MSM?
or how aboout this? I know it is "old news", but this perspective from an Iraqi should hve been noticed by someone. Faux News? MSNBCBS?
For hair raising reality, check out Michael Yon's latest article, Gates of Fire.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Where Has This Man Gone?

Since early on the 17th, this man has been missing. Attempts to contact him have been rebuffed. Have you seen or heard from him? Please leave a comment if you have.

Scott is back. Call off the search. Peace has returned to the universe.

Dave and Blarney are Back

Blarney: This is a new day.
Dave: Well, every day is a new day, but what are you talking about.
Blarney: Now everyone will see what a liar Bush is. Now that he has murdered that poor woman's son and caused her mother to have a stroke, we will finally impeach him.
Dave: Are you talking about Cindy Sheehan?
Blarney; Is that the woman camped out by Bush who only wants him to talk to her?
Dave: Well...
Blarney: Why won't that evil ******** meet with her anyway?
Blarney: Hey! I said "evil *******" and it came out "evil bunch of stars". What's up with that?
Dave: This is a family friendly site and improper words are automatically bleeped. Let me see if I can answer your question in a way you could understand.
First, there is a woman named Cindy Sheehan. She was camped out in Crawford, Texas, with a full media contingent until her mother had a stroke. She did have a son who volunteered to serve in Iraq and was murdered by Islamic terrorists.
Blarney: Don't try to confuse the issue! Bush murdered her son and now he won't even talk to her.
Dave: The president already met with her. He meets with many families. But what, precisely, do you think would be accomplished by his meeting with her now?
Blarney: He could explain to her why he murdered her son. It would show compassion.
Dave: How did Bush murder her son?
Blarney: He forced him to go to Iraq against his mother's wishes.
Dave: Wait just a minute. We have an all-volunteer army. The guy reenlisted, knowing he was going to Iraq. He did not have to do that. If anyone defied his mother's wishes, it was Casey Sheehan!
Blarney: You are just like Bush - insensitive! You crush people's feelings with facts. That is just not right!
Dave: * sigh *

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Just a Short Note - Please follow the links

Check out the text of the recent fatwa.

Both Cassandra at Villainous Company and Camojack have commented on this.

Some don't think the fatwa went far enough. It is a very good start. Should deter some in the west from attacking civilians. Probably will not affect the guys in the desert, but the Iraqi's are beginning to handle that.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Be Gone for a While

Sorry to disappoint my many fan by not posting more often. I am currently getting my lesson plans ready for the fall semester and working at my day job. Enjoy the updated Day by Day courtesy of Chris Muir.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Good News

Somedays you are just glad to get news that is good. No body counts, or body parts, just good enjoyment. Like this moment when a soldier stops to pet a cat.

Or this one, showing gratitude:

Or this one, appealing to the real Power.

All in all, I give it thumbs up.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Checking Fact Check's Editorials

I previously posted about an otherwise fine summary, published on July 22 by, of the Karl Rove-Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame hysteria. The feature contained what I felt were factual ommissions.

  1. Scott McClellan stated in a September 29, 2003, press conference that the administration was concerned about leaking classified information and that anyone in the administration who did that would be fired. The article omits reference to classified information.
  2. President Bush said on July 18, 2005, that "if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." The factcheck article characterized that as "easing off his prior statements."

I sent them an email (two, actually), suggesting that they replace "[the leak]" with "[leaking classified information]" and striking the editorial phrase "– easing off his earlier statements that he would fire anyone who leaked –" in its entirety.

Apparently I was not the only one to contact them, and they modififed the article on July 26. I reproduce the relevant sections below.

September 29, 2003 – McClellan says he has spoken to Rove, denies that Rove was involved in the leak, and says, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration.” ( White House Press Briefing, Sept. 29, 2003) . In a letter sent to Representative John Conyers on January 30, 2004 , the CIA will confirm that its Counterespionage Section has asked the FBI to initiate an investigation. ( Letter to Rep. John Conyers from the CIA) .

September 30, 2003 – The Justice Department publicly announces an official criminal investigation. Commenting, Bush says, “And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.” (" President discusses job creation, U. of Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003 ).


July 18, 2005 – Bush – easing off earlier White House statements that he would fire anyone who leaked – says “if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” ( Bush Press Conference with Prime Minister of India, July 18, 2005) . His press secretary Scott McClellan declines to say whether a firing would be triggered by an indictment or would require a conviction. ( White House Press Briefing, July 18, 2005 ).

Note: We originally said Bush had eased off "his" statements. Many of our subscribers objected, saying that they read Bush's earlier promises to fire any leaker as being in the context of a criminal investigation. We agree that reasonable people have read Bush's words differently. However, the statement of Bush's official spokesman McClellan on Sept. 29, 2003 was unambiguous: "“If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.” Bush's July 18 statement stands in clear contrast to that earlier White House position.

--by Kevin Collins with Jordan Grossman, Jennifer L. Ernst, Matthew Barge, and Brooks Jackson

Notice that they did not correct the "classified" about the September 29, 2003 press conference and they dug their heels in on the "earlier statements", choosing to contrast what Scott McClellan said on September 29, 2003 and what President Bush said on July 18, 2005. That completely ignores the President's statement on September 30, 2003. I see little difference between "violated law" and "committed a crime". But I do detect a failure to recognize that any "easing off" occured one day after McClellan's statement, not ten months later.

I contacted them about this and have had no response as yet.