Bush Wants To Waterboard Negro Cities With Hurricanes

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Baton Rouge Advocate

$7 billion to protect La. lost in Bush veto

By GERARD SHIELDS
Advocate Washington bureau
Published: Nov 3, 2007 - Page: 1A

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Friday vetoed a massive water resources bill that would authorize up to $7 billion for flood control, coastal restoration and hurricane protection in Louisiana.

Louisiana congressional delegation members — including traditional Bush stalwarts — immediately vowed to work for a veto override, which requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.

In his statement vetoing the $23 billion measure, Bush chastised Congress for lacking fiscal discipline.

“The House of Representatives took a $15 billion bill into negotiations with a $14 billion (bill) from the Senate and instead of splitting the difference, emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion,” Bush said.

The Water Resources Development Act, also called WRDA, simply authorizes or grants permission for projects. The plans would also require appropriations.

Bush called the 900 projects in the bill excessive. The legislation would exacerbate the massive $38 billion backlog of ongoing U.S. Army Corps construction projects, Bush said.

Because of the large number of new projects doled out to congressional districts and states, Bush said, critical projects such as hurricane protection for New Orleans will be sacrificed.

“I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities,” Bush said.

If enacted, the measure would authorize $1.9 billion for Louisiana coastal restoration projects, the most ever proposed by the federal government. Another $886 million would be permitted for the Morganza-to-the-Gulf storm-protection system for Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes.

The Amite River and tributaries modification in East Baton Rouge would be slated for $187 million in work while the East Atchafalaya and Amite River Basin program would receive $40 million.

Shortly after the Bush veto, Louisiana delegation members issued statements promising a legislative fight over the rejection.

U.S. Rep. Richard Baker, R-Baton Rouge, serves as the ranking Republican on the House water resources subcommittee that drafted the legislation. Though Baker votes with Bush more than 90 percent of the time, he said, he will push for a veto override, which could come as early as Tuesday in the House.

“I am confident that members of Congress are just as committed to supporting WRDA now as they were when Congress approved the bill by an overwhelming and veto-proof margin,” Baker said.

The House approved the bill 381-40 while the Senate backed it 81-12, with both votes well above the veto-proof margins of 287 votes needed in the House and 67 votes in the Senate.

U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., served on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that handled the bill. Vitter sent a letter to Bush signed by 22 Republican Senators pledging to override the veto.

With promised protection to Louisiana from a 100-year storm, the state could see authorization for up to $10 billion in projects, Vitter said.

“I am extremely disappointed by the president’s veto of WRDA and I want to reiterate the very clear statement I made when the WRDA veto threat was first announced in August,” Vitter said. “I will enthusiastically work to override this veto.”

Traditionally, water resources bills are crafted every two years. This is the first water bill since Bush took office in 2000.

“The Senate and House decided to put an end to this seven-year wait and voted overwhelmingly for this bill that includes wetland protection, flood protection and levee repair and construction,” U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said.

Many of the Louisiana projects are located in the district of U.S. Rep. Charles “Charlie” Melancon, D-Napoleonville. Any delay in passing the legislation puts off critical Louisiana needs, Melancon said.

“We will be voting to override the President’s veto as soon as we get back in session next week and I expect the Senate will follow suit,” Melancon said.

Bush has now vetoed five bills since being elected, including two that would have permitted stem cell research. The president recently vetoed a children’s health care measure. Earlier in the year, he rejected a war funding bill that contained exit language.

If successful, an override of the WRDA veto would be the first veto override since Bush took office.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco also issued a statement expressing disappointment with the veto.

“These projects will give our people confidence the federal failures of 2005 will never happen again,” she said.

U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner, said Friday he intends to return to Washington next week for the first time since being elected governor, in order to vote for the veto override.

Staff writer Michelle Millhollon contributed to this report.

[Knife]

He's an asshole and you have no flare for thread titles. At first glance I thought this was your last 'another day, another...' thread.

[Shroom Man 777]

A better thread title would've been "Bush Wants To Waterboard Negro Cities With Hurricanes".

Hrm, why the fuck would you not want to fund flood control measures? Isn't he afraid to piss off people who are pissed off over the whole pissed off affair of Hurricane Katrina? What a pisser.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

A better thread title would've been "Bush Wants To Waterboard Negro Cities With Hurricanes".

YES. PLEASE DO.

Hrm, why the fuck would you not want to fund flood control measures? Isn't he afraid to piss off people who are pissed off over the whole pissed off affair of Hurricane Katrina? What a pisser.

He's trying his damnedest at this point to get people to completely lose any faith at all in government. This is so he can 'RAR PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING RAR!' (without telling anyone that

• A> a requirement to turn a profit burdens things even worse,
  B> it causes huge conflicts of interest pretty much designed to maximize profits and suffering, and
  C> it entrusts vital government functions of regulation and safety to the very industries that need regulation the most

due to the industries' demonstrated total lack of capability to self-police; a classic 'Fox Guarding Henhouse' scenario.)

[Mlenk]

Hrm, why the fuck would you not want to fund flood control measures? Isn't he afraid to piss off people who are pissed off over the whole pissed off affair of Hurricane Katrina? What a pisser.

Well, the fact that his two-term limit is nearing an end and he doesn't have to worry about re-election comes to mind.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So let me get this straight: It's all fair and well for people to profit from others' misery, and it is fine for governments to absolve themselves of the need to do anything for their citizens.

So just what is the point of a government, other than to make war or create new markets for business?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Hrm, why the fuck would you not want to fund flood control measures? Isn't he afraid to piss off people who are pissed off over the whole pissed off affair of Hurricane Katrina? What a pisser.

Well, the fact that his two-term limit is nearing an end and he doesn't have to worry about re-election comes to mind.

I'm hearing scuttlebutt there's a real non-tinfoil-hat chance Bush may simply refuse to vacate the office, or he'll have the elections postponed or cancelled. I don't think even during the Civil War this was done.

However, he and his PNAC neoconservative fucktardist movement have four decades and countless billions of dollars invested in getting to where they are today, and it would make logical sense they wouldn't let it all get pissed away simply because America is a Constitutional democracy. After all, Bush's history of shitting on the Constitution and the American People from a very great height argues also for this possibility.

[Crown]

A better thread title would've been "Bush Wants To Waterboard Negro Cities With Hurricanes".

YES. PLEASE DO.

Great. Now all I can think about is; what was the original thread title? Thanks a lot you two!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

A better thread title would've been "Bush Wants To Waterboard Negro Cities With Hurricanes".

YES. PLEASE DO.

Great. Now all I can think about is; what was the original thread title? Thanks a lot you two!

Wuz: 'Another Day, Another Devastating Bush Veto-Crayon Attack'.

[Crown]

Nice. Anyway, enough of my derailment, exit that way ... ->

[Uraniun235]

I'm hearing scuttlebutt there's a real non-tinfoil-hat chance Bush may simply refuse to vacate the office, or he'll have the elections postponed or cancelled. I don't think even during the Civil War this was done.

Hearing from where?

[Ace Pace]

I'm hearing scuttlebutt there's a real non-tinfoil-hat chance Bush may simply refuse to vacate the office, or he'll have the elections postponed or cancelled. I don't think even during the Civil War this was done.

Hearing from where?

From Einys tinfoil hat forums.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'm hearing scuttlebutt there's a real non-tinfoil-hat chance Bush may simply refuse to vacate the office, or he'll have the elections postponed or cancelled. I don't think even during the Civil War this was done.

Hearing from where?

From Einys tinfoil hat forums.

It's basically speculation based upon Bush's observed behavior of complete mockery of any laws that try to limit his and Cheney's power to do what they will especially if it hurts someone, to paraphrase the witches' creed. Couple this with the aforementioned gigantic time and money investment the PNACers have made and the concomitant illogic of simply letting it all go to shit and relinquishing their grip on power as law dictates (yes, the same thing the point of which I've just pounded into the dirt that he pisses upon gleefully), and it's logical that this happenstance isn't and should never be considered outside the realm of possibility.

Oh, and if it turns out that he does, then bat me around like a pinata as a tinfoil nutter. If it turns out I called it, I'm not going to gloat. No one will be able to afford it.

[Covenant]

The president doesn't get to choose if or not we want to have an election, and if he does, all his freedom-mongering will go down the shitter real fast as his own party attempts to bodily tear him out. If he makes any suggestions of wanting to refuse to vacate the office, a bipartisan posse would drag him out quietly into the night. There's no chance of this whatsoever.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The president doesn't get to choose if or not we want to have an election, and if he does, all his freedom-mongering will go down the shitter real fast as his own party attempts to bodily tear him out. If he makes any suggestions of wanting to refuse to vacate the office, a bipartisan posse would drag him out quietly into the night. There's no chance of this whatsoever.

That's the optimum choice of what happens should he bid for Empire. I have little faith in the spineless cowards in Congress who couldn't turn political capital into action if the know-how was drilled into their heads from birth, but, after all, that's not outside the realm of possibility either!

[Kuja]

The president doesn't get to choose if or not we want to have an election, and if he does, all his freedom-mongering will go down the shitter real fast as his own party attempts to bodily tear him out. If he makes any suggestions of wanting to refuse to vacate the office, a bipartisan posse would drag him out quietly into the night. There's no chance of this whatsoever.

That's the optimum choice of what happens should he bid for Empire. I have little faith in the spineless cowards in Congress who couldn't turn political capital into action if the know-how was drilled into their heads from birth, but, after all, that's not outside the realm of possibility either!

You honestly think guys like Guliani, Thompson or McCain, bleater that he is, and others all bucking for greater authority and with their own eye on the Oval Office are going to let him get away with that? Hell no. The Republican party would turn on him overnight like a rabid dog. The Democrats probably wouldn't even get a chance to comment before the smearing went into full effect and Bush shamed out of office without even employing legal or military procedures.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The president doesn't get to choose if or not we want to have an election, and if he does, all his freedom-mongering will go down the shitter real fast as his own party attempts to bodily tear him out. If he makes any suggestions of wanting to refuse to vacate the office, a bipartisan posse would drag him out quietly into the night. There's no chance of this whatsoever.

That's the optimum choice of what happens should he bid for Empire. I have little faith in the spineless cowards in Congress who couldn't turn political capital into action if the know-how was drilled into their heads from birth, but, after all, that's not outside the realm of possibility either!

You honestly think guys like Guliani, Thompson or McCain, bleater that he is, and others all bucking for greater authority and with their own eye on the Oval Office are going to let him get away with that? Hell no. The Republican party would turn on him overnight like a rabid dog. The Democrats probably wouldn't even get a chance to comment before the smearing went into full effect and Bush shamed out of office without even employing legal or military procedures.

This is why I believe it is extremely unlikely even if it's not impossible. I think the Repubs will immediately launch impeachment proceedings if Bush tries.

[Drooling Iguana]

So just what is the point of a government, other than to make war or create new markets for business?

In America? To perpetuate itself and line the pockets of its members. There are some countries whose populations still expect their governments to work in their interests and hold their governments accountable when they don't, but the United States doesn't appear to be among them any more.

[wolveraptor]

Bush needs to shut the fuck up about fiscal responsibility. He hasn't got the right to utter those words....465 fucking billion in Iraq...he could pay for one of these bills every 3 months at the rate we're going there.

[Teebs]

It's basically speculation based upon Bush's observed behavior of complete mockery of any laws that try to limit his and Cheney's power to do what they will especially if it hurts someone, to paraphrase the witches' creed. Couple this with the aforementioned gigantic time and money investment the PNACers have made and the concomitant illogic of simply letting it all go to shit and relinquishing their grip on power as law dictates (yes, the same thing the point of which I've just pounded into the dirt that he pisses upon gleefully), and it's logical that this happenstance isn't and should never be considered outside the realm of possibility.

Oh, and if it turns out that he does, then bat me around like a pinata as a tinfoil nutter. If it turns out I called it, I'm not going to gloat. No one will be able to afford it.

I'd have thought the difference is that avoiding laws constraining your power looks like strong leadership and explaining why it shouldn't be allowed is semi-complicated. On the other hand, refusing to vacate the office is going up directly against the constitution in a very obvious way which his opponents can distill into soundbites.

[Sidewinder]

The thread title was fairly misleading, but the article itself...

Damn it! If Bush needs more money to fund Operation Iraqi Freedom, why doesn't he walk the streets and offer blowjobs for $40 each? That's got to be more productive than sacrificing a whole damn city, with the revenue that could've been raised from taxpaying citizens, local businesses, and industries, to bad weather!

[The Yosemite Bear]

oy, I am hoping this is something from waaaaaaaay out in the left field...

[Patrick Degan]

As always, Bush's message to the people:


HEH —FUCK YOU, 'MURRIKA

[Drooling Iguana]

The thread title was fairly misleading, but the article itself...

Damn it! If Bush needs more money to fund Operation Iraqi Freedom, why doesn't he walk the streets and offer blowjobs for $40 each? That's got to be more productive than sacrificing a whole damn city, with the revenue that could've been raised from taxpaying citizens, local businesses, and industries, to bad weather!

He's probably banking on the chance that the next major hurricane won't hit until a Democrat is in power.

[18-Till-I-Die]

What is truly scary about all of this, for me, is that we probably could have taken the money we spend on the "War on Terror" and used it on...God how many things?

Feeding the poor.

Improving schools.

Better rehabilitation in prisons.

Repairing the decaying city-cores in most major cities.

All far, far more important shit that would could spend these billions on. And, unlike the "War on Terror", actually make headway. But no. No, no, no, fucking no. We'll spend all this fucking money, on some fucking "war" on a God damn concept.

That's what always pissed me off about this. Terror is a fucking concept, not an entity. It's an abstract idea, you cant possibly expect to hurt it or disable it because it has no physical form. I could see declaring war on, say, a country or even a person, but waging war on a concept is asinine. I declare war on LOVE! Hencefoth i shall attack love where it lives and destroy it! Me and Darkheart from the Care Bears.

Thats how fucking retarded it is.

But i digress.