1,00 dead is acceptable for a decline in poll numbers?
How many, I wonder, would be acceptable to achieve a legislative defeat for the president?
Or an impeachment? That last one could result in depopulating California.

Wow - that's harsh. He's satisifed that folks had to die to get Bush's poll numbers to drop? Why can't the Repubs (the experts of Lost Opportunities) take that and run with it? Make some political hay while the sun briefly shines...

I think this story is doing more harm than good to the goal of Bush-bashing (which of course is increasingly the goal of EVERY MSM news article, on any subject). For one thing, wasn't Brownie supposed to be clueless? He comes off pretty informed and competent in the video. And wasn't the federal government hopeless straggling behind state and local efforts? The video shows the Feds clearly in the loop.
As a bonus, this story is sucking all the oxygen away from the bogus CBS poll story, which I'm sure CBS wanted to play for several more days.

What? That's not what he said at all, and you know it. He is clearly expressing concern and remorse that it took something of this scale, the suffering and deaths of thousands of people after Katrina struck, to make the public wake up to the incompetence of this administration. This is a willful attempt to misrepresent what he is saying. Shame on you.

>What? That's not what he said at all, and you know it.

Maybe you didn't follow the link. It is a direct quote.

And isn't it ironic that he celebrates people waking up while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sleeps on the Supreme Court? How many lives will be lost before she wakes up?

Rookie: "Celebrate" hardly sounds like an expression for remorse.

I would like to know when these people will wake up to realize that they are living under sea level on a coast subject to hurricanes. Is this the elephant in the room or what?

George, search the archives, New Orelans did not flood because it was below sea-level. (go read, don't argue here)

They had a woman on TV who was 12 feet above sea-level in Mississippi. She had 15 feet was water.

It's not that simple as saying they are below sea-level.

Paul:

You're right.

But the difference between living below sea level and living below lake level is pretty thin in this case, since the results are the same, especially since the major threat from being below lake level that day was because the lake was getting all of that extra water from the sea.

cirby,

MILLIONS of people live below "lake level" and not just on coasts. Ever hear of mountians?

It is like the bogus arguemnt about people should not live in a "flood plain." Anout 1/3 of the nation is in a flood plain. Even the White House is in a flood plain.

All these buzzword arguments sound great but they really don't hold up to real scrutiny.

Does that mean that the other 2/3rd's of the nation must pick up the tab when the first 1/3rd gets their houses detroyed? Because I'll go ahead and cancel my home-owners policy and save $700/year knowing that my fellow Americans will pay to have my house rebuilt if my cat knocks over a lamp and burns my house to the ground.

Hmmmm.

It is like the bogus arguemnt about people should not live in a "flood plain." Anout 1/3 of the nation is in a flood plain. Even the White House is in a flood plain.

Or how about living in the shadow of a volcano? There's about 3 million people living in a proven flood zone beneath the shadow of Mt. Ranier. If Ranier does a Mt. St. Helens then there's going to be a huge traffic jam as there's only a few highways out of that area.

*shrug* a lot of people live in some rather silly places.

New Orleans is indeed below sea level.
Depending on what part of town you are in,
you can be from 5-10 feet below sea level.
You can argue that this isn't a problem if
water doesn't enter but, WITHOUT A DOUBT,
this contributed massively to the problem.
Once water enters New Orleans, it MUST be
pumped out. There is no natural drainage.

Living below "lake level" or in a flood plain
is a completely different situation. Those areas
still provide natural drainage; New Orleans
does not.

So, I reiterate my questions. When will New Orleans
residents wake up and realize that they are living under sea
level on a coast subject to hurricanes. Is this the elephant in
the room or what?