"Investigations" into failed rescue response will be less than worthless.

[Kurovski]

It seems that investigations these days are nothing more then ways to officially cover-up, confuse and dilute the facts. Perhaps they always were.

The politicians who don't point out the obvious, as Nancy Pelosi has done in plain and no uncertain terms, are complicit in the deaths of thousands, and are paving the way for more to come in future natural disasters and possible terrorist attacks.

I'm talking to you, Joe Lieberman.

We've already seen how Bush sits on his hands when--as in the case of the Anthrax attacks on Democrats, postal workers, and a newspaperman-- he doesn't care about the individuals involved.

Bush--and under his direction the federal government--first actively ignored the levee problems, the approaching storm, and then stalled rescue and assistance while the state and city begged. They BEGGED.
Like lowly subjects, they had to wheedle, beg and then rail at the king before he granted largesse to the peons.

We don't need to investigate that. We SAW IT HAPPEN. It unfolded horribly BEFORE OUR EYES.

What needs investigating is WHY Bush and his cronies did what they did.

[xray s]

1. We don't need a goddam investigation

Its obvious what is wrong and it has to be fixed now before the next disaster strikes.

FIRE BROWN, CHERTHOFF AND RUMSFELD!

[Kurovski]

3. But here we have it. The media today is already cawing about

investigations instead of stating the obvious.

We are being primed for the whitewashing of the failed Bush response.

[Imagevision]

2. And repugs continue to say this country is safer with Bush...!

[Kurovski]

4. Addition: Pelosi said that if Bush wanted to find out who

was responsible for the rescue failures, all he need do is look in the mirror.

Forgot to put that in the original post.

[wiggs]

5. Agree, except

if the investigation is criminal and we get the right prosecutor. An investigation after 2006 might work if congress flips...which is why there will be a quick congressional investigation that concludes that there is long-standing bipartisan blame at all levels of government.

[Kurovski]

8. I think that your point about who is doing the investigating

will make the difference. Maybe if enough folks yell at their congressfolk, congress will actually do their job and heads will roll.

I think it's clear to Americans that what happened in NO could happen anywhere. (Except possibly for states that have a Bush installed, or Repub govs.)But most Americans won't see the political angle,(not wishing to believe it) they will just see the incompetence.

If we can overcome the election fraud in 2006, I think we can go for impeachment. There's plenty there.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. In the meantime heads need to roll

and we will sort them out later.

[snippy]

7. But . . but . . but . . I thought Bush has announced that he is going to

hire O.J. to find the real killers.

[mopaul]

9. and how many millions will be spent on these committees?

[Kurovski]

10. Oh, don't worry about that. There's lots of money leftover

from when Bush cut levee projects, wetlands protection, and emergency response money for Louisiana and FEMA.

That represents how many millions?

[Kurovski]

11. Bush said he's starting an investigation because

"It's important to understand the relationship between federal... and state governments".

Like what? What will George come to understand? That the local government screwed up royal while Bush's feds were MAYBE, maybe just a "smidge" off? That'll be the conclusion of Bush's "investigation".

If Bush needs an investigation to "understand the relationship between federal and state governments", what in hell is he doing in the White House?

George and his crew are incompetent, manipulative, and dangerous dumbbells. Show them the door.

[KG]

12. Investigations = dog and pony show.

[Kurovski]

13. I think the only real investigation we can get is if a group

of excellent reporters team to collect the evidence and sort out the facts.