RE: Re: By the way, Bill

Bill,
     As I pointed out earlier, possibly too subtly, to spend money on one thing is not to spend it on another.  Yes, the actual physical dollar bills probably were not moved from infrastructure here at home to Iraq, but it doesn't take the proverbial rocket scientist to figure out that the huge new bureaucracy called Homeland Security is getting funded at the expense of other things like actual homeland security.  Those who elect to live in denial may do so, but all of us, yourself included, know what the budget buster has been.
     Yes, stating that there are too few National Guard to do their real job instead of prosecuting Bush's war is an opinion.  I think, though, that not even the Bush administration is arguing that there are enough there to do the job.  So while technically an opinion, it's bloody obvious.  Are you seriously arguing that the number there was sufficient?  Please clarify!
     The illegality of the war is old news, and I did not think that you wanted to be embarrassed on a side point, but since you asked, there is no question about it except in the minds of partisan extremists such as Albert "torture memo" Gonzalez and those like yourself who accept the warmaking.  There are narrowly defined circumstances under which a sovereign nation may invade another, and we did not meet those.  These are Constitutional requirements in the matter of declaring war and in the matter of treating as law those treaties to which we are signatory (i.e.- The UN charter).  Operating outside the law is illegal by definition.
     And finally, your repeated insistence upon bringing up Clinton begs the question:  if you want Clinton to have some blame, then you must accept that G.W. Bush gets blame too.  You cannot have it both ways.  I am quite content to hold them both responsible for neglect of infrastructure during their terms, but only one of those is in power right this minute.
     Defending the feds on this one is a lost cause.
cheers,
Clark


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] on behalf of William Highfield
Sent: Mon 9/5/2005 2:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CAT23-Achat] Re: By the way, Bill
 
Clark,

Your links were COMMENTARY by newspapers, not facts.  Stating that 
funding was cut is a fact - stating that they were "drained into the 
Iraq war" is an opinion.  Clinton cut funding as well to the levee 
projects, and the state government and city governments ALSO cut 
funding.  My own opinion (which I won't present as 'fact') is that they 
knew that the levees would not hold up to a Cat4 or Cat5 storm and 
decided the money was better used on an evacuation plan.  A plan, I 
might add, that they DID NOT IMPLIMENT.

Stating that 35% of LA's guard was in Iraq may well be a fact (I heard a 
lesser perecentage), but stating that they are not enough to do the job 
is an opinion.  Other opinions on that regard are that there WERE enough 
to do the job, if the governor had chosen to deploy them.

Stating that the war is "an illegal war" is an opinion.  You have a few 
facts presented in your links, but frankly, the majority of it is 
opinion taken from the media.

You'll have your opinion, I'll have mine.  The simple FACT is that New 
Orleans and LA were ill-prepared.  The question then becomes, who is 
most responsible for their city.  New Orleans, LA, or the rest of the 
country?  I'm in the camp that NO should have prepared better 
themselves.  LA as a state should have done likewise.  The Feds are only 
good AFTER the storm, as Florida well knows, and it's a lesson other 
states ought to learn from this ordeal.

-- 
Bill Highfield
St Cloud, Florida, USA!

Top Choice Videos and Music
~12,000VHS ~4,000DVD ~2,000CD in stock!
We special order & We ship ANYWHERE!
Visit one of our online stores!
http://stores.ebay.com/topchoicevideos?refid=store
http://www.amazon.com/shops/topchoicevideos