Mairead Corrigan Maguire on Katrina

by Fergal Hanlon Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:00

The criminal negligence of the Bush regime has caused the deaths of thousands. This should be the focus. Bush commands a huge fleet of air, sea and land vehicles. Yet babies die for lack of water and tens of thousands wait , and beg, and plead, for days for help. This is an atrocity. It is war on the poor. Nice sounding 'humanitarian' concern is wonderful from a Nobel prize winner. But it exonerates the Bush criminality.

by swiss army pen knife - (the real ones don't oxidise very useful) Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:45

the terribly human, european or even Irish Katrina did not cause this. She was merely a wind, a zephyr of unusual but not unpredicted magnitude. There will be others like her, and next years mens' names too.

New Orleans and the three gulf states are national human disasters.

They result from poor disaster prevention, relief or assistance at local and federal level. All regimes, all the trinity of presidents.

Flooding caused the disaster. Not the wind.
The wind destroyed roads and buildings but the water came through broken dykes and uncared for rivers.

And on and on the language emerges, as a globalised american drama complete with its jargon, codewords, its beligerancy and calls for sympathy and support, the "war's homefront" -

US Americans are refugees. Looters are insurgents. Other american refugees from other winds whose names are now forgotten are aliens. Survivors of Africa are poorly housed sans papiers who need to be rounded up though Chirac is shocked and De Villepin's 100 days are almost up, and sent back. "for their own good".

London's, Rome's, Berlin's, NYC's, Nederlands' poor are reliant on what advice? what plan? what prediction? Europe may feel better prepared, less at risk,.. Civilised. But what are we to do if this happens? What do we do in the next 50 years when nuke "accidents" occur.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Wed Sep 07, 2005 01:48

This is a message of sympathy, not a judgement from a tribunal of Inquiry.
In no way does it exonerate Bush

by Noel Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:18

And why would President Bush need exonerating?
The federal government is not responsible for the failure of evacuation. The city is responsible and as the highest elected official - the buck stops at the mayor.
But I guess there's no agendas against Mayor Nagin around these parts.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Wed Sep 07, 2005 19:12

on TV and see if he cares tuppence about people- any people - dying as a result of the long delay in getting aid to the area.
Notice the half smile that flickers around his lips when he uses a sound bite. "And I'll tell you why!!!".
Notice too the look of despair on the faces of the people that are with him.
You may want to defend him to the death and that's your prerogative. I think he bears responsibility big time for the extent of this disaster.

by Noel Thu Sep 08, 2005 08:56

Justin, I believe President Bush to be a sensitive, caring, humane person. However I've not come to that conclusion by studying video of facial tics, grins or smirks. I'm sure you have a plethora of reasons to utterly despise President Bush - but if his tv demeanour is one of them I'd urge counselling.

Anyhoo, if you knew even a little about US politics, apart from what you read at EvilChimpyBushHalliburton.com, you would realise the administration is not responsible for a city's governance.

Where's your disgust with Mayor Ray Nagin?
This buffoon has probably caused the deaths of thousands through his utter incompetence.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Fri Sep 09, 2005 01:43

I don't call people baboons or suggest to adversaries that they get counselling. I don't despise anyone. President Bush had no responsibility to "save" Iraq but as US President he undertook to do so, "spreading democracy" as he (smilingly) put it. The country of which he is President needed help urgently but he failed them miserably. Too much spent on that far away country with which he had this strange fascination - and which he destroyed, creating havoc and calling it democracy. Your belief that he is a "sensitive, caring, humane person" - what evidence have you for that belief or is it just a matter of faith?
Was he sensitive at the religious service for the victims of the Twin Towers atrocity when he turned around in church pulling funny faces at someone down in the body of the church? Was he caring when he shunted young men and women out to die and never appeared at their funerals. Is he caring towards Cindy Sheehan whose son Casey was sacrificed for Bush's cause in Iraq? Humane? Please tell me - as this is one adjective I would never associate with George W Bush.
Sources for my information: that exterme, left wing, radical anti-war magazine, Time.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Fri Sep 09, 2005 01:56

Correction: Buffoon, not baboon, you said.

by TheTroll Fri Sep 09, 2005 02:10

... a little bit MORE about yourselves???

Why would Bush trash America's largest port?

The USA (bread basket of the world) infrustructure can NOT transport it's agricultural bounty except on the Mississippi river and through N.O.

Silos are already full, the harvest is already under way in some northern states. But that food stock is not going ANYWHERE.

As hunger and starvation around the world escalates, hostilities should be expected to increase. Starving hopeless people are much more prone to wage war. And to protect you from the chaos created by Bush's actions and innactions, expect to hear more and more calls for big brother (Bush and his neocon handlers) to step in and save us. Bush will not just end up the dictator of the US, but of the entire "Free wolrd". And that includes YOU. And if that prick doesn't lift a finger to save his own fellow countrymen, what can Irland expect???