Bill Clinton Panders To The Poor

The former president today criticzed the Bush disaster response as having neglected the plight of the poor, stating that disaster management cannot be effective if only for the middle class and up.

NYT: Mr. Clinton said he was especially disturbed that many of the people who lost homes in the hurricane had no property insurance.

"Everything they owned was in their little home," he said. "And if we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out and also lots of empty vans" to save the belongings of those with no home or flood insurance.

*************

How would that work? I mean, would you survey the disaster victims as to their insurance status? Vans for those that didn't plan ahead; claim forms for those with insurance?

RE: Bill Clinton Criticizes Disaster Response

If anything this makes Former President Clinton appear to be quite a hyprocrite. Only last week, Mr Clinton was defending President Bush in the press and stated that the White House was responding in a timely fashion and FEMA should be given a chance. Suddenly this past weekend, Mt Clinton changed his tune in joining the chorus of Bush Critics. What a difference a weekend can make

President Clinton wasn't just bashing the White House response, I was managed to catch a few minutes of " Meet The Press " early Sunday morning and Tim Russert asked the former Prez as to how the federal government should pay for the costs of Hurricane Katrina. Mr Clinton's resonse by saying that the Bush tax cuts for the top income earners who fall in that category of 1% ought to be repealed.

There were one matter where President Clinton managed to put a positive spin on, to Mr Clinton's credit, he did state that when the time is right in choosing a permanent replacement to head FEMA, the new chairman should have a rapport with President Bush. Just as Mr Clinton did with James Lee Witt.

Overall I hope some journalist has the guts to ask President Clinton over the next few days as to why the sudden change in attitude towards the Bush Administration and their response to Hurricane Katrina.

It's funny when Bill Clinton was the occuppier in the White House, on certain issues he used to frustrate both journalists and politicians alike as to his constant agreements with people of the opposing view, he would never take a definitive position of his own unless pressed upon to do so. I guess old habits die hard and his change of opinion from last week to this past weekend of President Bush and Hurricane Katrina is no different.

Rohale

RE: Bill Clinton Criticizes Disaster Response

as for the new head of FEMA, i am not sure why that job should be a political appointment and not a permanent civil service job with a professional. i can only think that BOTH parties like it as a political job slot as it gives them a place to put someone that needs to be thanked for their political work/support.

the job seems to require skills that take years to get and the experience over time should lead to a qualified person on a permanent basis. in all the talk about "fixing" the problem, i have heard none about de-politizing the job.

RE: Bill Clinton Criticizes Disaster Response

Bill Clinton also said this about Iraq:

<<On on the other hand, Saddam is gone and 58 percent of those people voted. That's an even higher percentage of people than voted in America in 2004, when we were proud of our turnout and when nobody's life was at risk. So there's still a chance this will work. And if it does, there's still a chance it will be a net plus for the Middle East.>>

And by the way, Afghanistan had its first nationwide free elctions for its legislature and every independent election monitoring agency (even the ones which Leftists love) declared it to be a smashing success (http://nytimes.com/2005/09/19/international/asia/19afghan.html?hp&ex=1127188800&en=21b37ab7b0e9bb16&ei=5094&partner=homepage).

Democracy now reigns in Iraq and Afghanistan - tens of millions of people who, for the first time in their lives, are able to have a say in their own governments.

If the Leftists who dominate this Board had their way, those people would still be living under the most brutal, repressive, homicidal dictatorships imaginable. But hey - they're just little brown Muslims, so it's not like they need democracy or freedom or anything.

My, how low the anti-freedom Left has sunk - can't even admit that these two wars liberated tens of millions of human beings and rid the world of two of the most vicious and despicable governments on the planet.

RE: Bill Clinton Criticizes Disaster Response

Doid someone fart in here?

RE: Bill Clinton Criticizes Disaster Response

Not only did they fart, I am sure they are check writting too!

New twist on Iraq aid: U.S. seeks donations

BY CAM SIMPSON

Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.

But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.

Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans "a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq."

RE: Bill Clinton Criticizes Disaster Response

>If anything this makes Former President Clinton appear to be

>quite a hyprocrite.

Come on. On the one hand he want's the legitimacy of the Bushes (breeding, no Lewinsky) and on the other hand he wants his bitch as POTUS. If she wins (and two terms), there will be 20 yo Columbine kids who've only known Bushes and Clintons as fearless leaders. As we are becoming more like the Mother Country, why vote Democrat?

Later.

RE: Bill Clinton Criticizes Disaster Response

>>If anything this makes Former President Clinton appear to

>be

>>quite a hyprocrite.

>

>Come on. On the one hand he want's the legitimacy of the

>Bushes (breeding, no Lewinsky) and on the other hand he wants

>his bitch as POTUS. If she wins (and two terms), there will

>be 20 yo Columbine kids who've only known Bushes and Clintons

>as fearless leaders. As we are becoming more like the Mother

>Country, why vote Democrat?

>

>Later.

President Clinton is very clever. In the United States, the public is deeply divided over President Bush, some believe he's a war monger by nature and decree and others believe that he's protecting the United States and trying democratise the world or much as can be achieved. However in the eyes of the world, he's been condemned as liar and is very much villified. What has happened is when people make comparisons to the Clinton Presidency to the Bush Presidency. There appears to be this belief for most people that world was better off with Bill Clinton as oppposed to George W Bush being President. In the Clinton era, some belief that the United States was less hated there was a bit more stability in the world.

The more people believe in this, it makes Bill Clinton look that much better. To Mr Clinton's credit, he's no slouch, he's an opportunist and absolutely takes every advantage possible, in turn he makes high profiled trips worldwide or takes on causes that he feels he can associate with.

I remember two years ago at the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool, England. Deputy Prime Minister John Presscott took a pot shot at President Bush by stating that the world was safer when Bill Clinton was in the White House as opposed to the current occuppier. Offcourse Prime Minister Tony Blair looked on and the rumor was that he personally insisted the Mr Presscott should speak his mind and had no qualms in attacking President Bush. If one were to think about, after Bill Clinton's presidency, Tony Blair is the probably the most high profiled liberal leader out there today.

You ask why vote democrat, that's a very good question, in this time and age even the Democratic Party has a tough time selling whatever message that they want to resonate the voters with. Most people dont really care. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid seems to be a nice guy, let's face it, he has no charisma and is absolutely boring in trying to articulate a message. He seems deadish on camera. For me the last really great Democrat was the late great Former Speaker Of The House Tip O'Neal. He was absolutely brilliant in his day, he had a belief system and he stood up for his principles, unlike most liberals today. Speaker O'Neal's most famous fued was in the early 1980's with then President Reagan. This is what the Democratic Party needs these days, just as the Republican Party was revitalised in the 1990's with Newt Gingrich and to a certain extent on radio, Rush Limbaugh was a tremendous help in getting the message out. If the Democratic Party in general doesn't learn from their own failures and mistakes, then they should be entitled to put themselves on the most endangered species list and deservedly so. It's just my own opinion and nothing more

Rohale