Christiane Amanpour Throughout History (Part 1 of More Than 1)

"...and experts we spoke with expressed concerns that the White House might opt for a military response before exhausting all possible diplomatic options."


« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »


Remember Aaron "We were told 'The cavalry's coming, on a federal level'" Broussard?
After the mother of a co-worker drowned (along with 34 other elderly patients) in a nursing home near New Orleans the day Hurricane Katrina hit (BEFORE the flooding that occurred as a result of the levees being breached), he told Meet the Press's Tim Russert:
"I am personally asking our bipartisan congressional delegation here in Louisiana to immediately begin congressional hearings to find out just what happened here. Why did it happen? Who needs to be fired?"
Maybe they should start with officials from Louisiana's health and transportation departments.
According to this article:
A ranking Louisiana health official turned down federal offers to help move or evacuate patients as Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans, a newly released document shows. ... Two days before the Aug. 29 storm, HHS was told by the state's health emergency preparedness director that the help was not needed, according to an e-mail released Monday by a Senate panel investigating the government's response to Katrina.The state official, identified in the Aug. 27 e-mail as Dr. Roseanne Pratts, "responded no, that they do not require anything at this time and they would be in touch if and when they needed assistance," wrote HHS senior policy analyst Erin Fowler.
...
At the time of the HHS e-mail, Guidry said, the state was still weighing "what the needs would be" for patient safety _ including for those whom officials initially did not want to move for fear of worsening their conditions. "At that point in time there was no request as to any kind of evacuation," Guidry said.
...
The committee also released a Senate interview of Louisiana Transportation Secretary Johnny Bradberry, during which he told investigators "we have done nothing to fulfill this responsibility" of ensuring evacuation plans are in place for at-risk populations.
The e-mail was released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is investigating the government's response to Katrina.
I doubt you'll hear about this on the network newscasts, because when it comes to the mistakes, missteps and blunders associated with Katrina, while they love to say there were failures "At all levels" and "Plenty of blame to go around", they tend to say so only when they can include the federal government (read: Bush administration) in the blame-fest.
BTW, I do agree there were failures at all levels of government--local, state and federal--in this tragedy, but the media for the most part seems much more interested in the failures that can be directly linked with Bush administration officials.
Related posts:
Katrina Myth: Aaron Broussard's "Emotional" Appearance on MTP
Over at AMERICAblog, where the POLITICALLY INFORMED are mourning the SHREDDING OF THE CONSTITUTION (AKA the cloture vote on Alito), there are nearly 400 comments in just one Alito thread, so far.
They start off with the usual threats to leave the Democratic party [NO! Please don't throw us in that briar patch and start a third party!], then the angry future-former-Dims decide they "want names!"
Can we get a list of those who broke rank?
mg
I want names.
DOinSD
At this point, one commenter (who apparently possesses the supernatural powers one needs in order to access the Senate web site and look up the roll call results) pastes in the names of the TRAITORS. To which another commenter replies:
I want NAMES!
The Angry Hobbit
Followed by:
Can we get a list of cloture votes?
Lewis
Then there's the standard dire warning to all of us ignorant rednecks:
Disgraceful. Wait 'til underinformed Americans who voted for these idiots find out they've lost their Constitutional privacy rights. If Roe goes down, Griswold (contraception) goes with it.
Donna Dallas
A few comments later, one of the POLITICALLY INFORMED asks:
Who's DeMint? (And is that a real name?!)
tireiron chef
Suddenly, a stern warning is issued to one of the TRAITORS:
Dems, including OBAMA, stay away from me.
GG
Not so fast, GG!
For the record, Obama voted against cloture-
RF
Whew! That was close!
Just in case someone missed the earlier lists, another POLITICALLY (OVER?)INFORMED commenter provides, once again, a list of the TRAITORS:
Here are the 17 Judases of the Democratic Party. F**k em all!
Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bingaman (NM), Byrd (WV), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Dorgan (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO)
Anonymous
Which, naturally, provokes this response from another COMMENT WARRIOR:
Okay, someone *please* post a link that shows who voted which way.
I want to identify those spineless Dems in Congress.
This filibuster wasn't just about Alito--it was about standing up for what is right, whether effective or not. It's about Dems showing a united front.
So, a profound *thank you* to Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Reid!
(And so much for Obama.)
Also, my thanks to km4 for posting Wesley Clark's quote above. He was right on!
LPS
What's this about Wesley Clark, you ask? I almost forgot one of the best comments:
Wes Clark was supberb today on C-Span 3 with his speech on "Real State of U.S. Foreign Policy 2006"
I sure hope he runs because Wes Clark is the only one that can wipe the floor clean against ANY Republican Pres. candidate in 2008 ( all other Dems are LOSERS ! )
km4
Oh, no! Please don't throw us in that briar patch and run Clark in 2008!
Finally, we have this shot across the bow of the (SO-CALLED DEMOCRAT) TRAITORS:
You know who I've been giving my "political" donations to?
AMERICAblog
DailyKos
Crooks&Liars
Since I live in DC, I have no voice other then these WEB sites. These 3 WEB Sites speak for me!!!!and thus they get my $
HereinDC
Fight on, AMERICAblog dudes! Fight on! And, whatever you do, don't throw us in that briar patch and give your money to Kos!

But he asked for American cheese. Major faux pas.

We now join Fox News Sunday, already in progress.


















































"It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation."
Yes! Say it, brother!
"It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy."
Whaaa?
"With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida."
Oops. My bad.
So what did he say about the Palestinian elections?
"The elections were completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence," the former president said.
Oh. I see. I think he must have taken a whack to the head while he was building one of those Habitat for Hamas houses (or whatever you call them). Either that or he's just an idiot. A useful one.


ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.
Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.
If Hillary were to run, then, yes, it would be sweet to see her get stomped by Condi Rice, but that's never going to happen. I'm still not convinced Hillary will run. I have serious doubts about her willingness to open the Clinton closet and risk a skeleton avalanche.
But let's say for the sake of argument she does. Where did this notion begin that we need to choose a woman to run against her? If you ask me, it's silly. And like it or not, right or wrong, I don't think the voters in this country are ready to elect a woman as President.
Add to that that Condi Rice doesn't have the right kind of executive experience (provost isn't the same thing as CEO, or, better yet, governor), and her own beliefs, convictions and political philosophy are murky at best - since she's mainly been in administrative/policy positions, the views she voices and positions she takes are generally those of her superiors (which is the way it should be).
So, now that it looks like Hillary is a lot weaker than the drooling pundits from both the left and right have been assuming, can we move on? I'm not saying she won't run - after all, it's still early, this is just one poll, and, of course, this is the party that chose Howard Dean to run their operation (with help from the Clinton camp, I might add), but Condi's never going to run against her, no matter how badly Dick Morris wants it to happen.
My theory: Hillary takes this as far as she can without committing, builds up a base of far-left supporters, forcing someone to kiss her ring and beg for her support, then bows out leaving "them" wanting more.
EXCLUSIVE: Must credit WuzzaDem.
Apparently, C-Span has been editing its coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Alito nomination.
Here's the tape they don't want you to see.



















































































Dear Glamour,
My boyfriend has always been a tiger between the sheets. Well, not literally - that's just a figure of speech. Not to change the subject, but why is that a figure of speech, anyway? Are tigers supposed to be good in bed? Not that I would ever go out with a tiger (or have sex with one), I'm just wondering.
Anyway, although my boyfriend and I have always had a healthy sex life (which has never involved tigers in any way), lately he's seemed distant when we're getting it on. You know, that's a really strange saying, too: getting it on. I mean, what are you supposed to be getting on?
What was I talking about? Oh, yeah - tigers getting it on. No, that wasn't it. Oh, I know, it was my boyfriend. So, he hasn't really seemed that interested in sex lately, but last week we saw Brokeback Mountain, and that night we really burned up the sheets (not literally), so I'm thinking he might be gay.
Should I have a sex change operation and see if that helps spice up our sex life?
Yours Truly,
Maybe a Mister Soon
Dear Maybe,
Please take some time to think about what it is you're contemplating. Take a deep breath and just think about it.
That's long enough - we say, Go for it, girl! And if it should turn out that your boyfriend is a prude who prefers partners without penises, then toss him out on his ear. There are plenty of guys out there who would kill (figuratively speaking) for a chance to be with a horny, pistol-packing ex-chick.
Just make sure not to have your gender reassignment surgery done on the cheap (remember the sad story of reader Limp in Lancaster), and, most importantly, make sure your doctor isn't some redneck, flag-waving, Bush-loving, Jesus-freak repuke. After all, you have your dignity to think about.
Sincerely,
The Morons at Glamour
Related: Seriously, though
























































Squirrel, please!

I want to apoplogize for saying that this House of Representatives has been run like a plantation.

















The following takes place between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM:
































I don't say that often (because I'm not wrong very often), but I'm not back yet.
I may have time to post later.
Or not.
Not sure.

Posting this from an undisclosed location. I haven't told anyone else, so please keep it to yourself.
Back in a few days.