So are you saying that there has never been any purpose for federal spending for responding to disasters, GUEST??? Sho nuff sounds as if you are...

"Well, Heck, Ralph... They can't float outta that mess on a dollar bill..."

Is that where you are coming from, GUEST??? Okay, lets say that instead of Katrina, a nuclear device had been detonated in New Orleans... Would you still advocate the use of an unfunded evacuation plan or would you, like with Katrina, just let the Red Cross and churches do the best that they could???

Maybe this is a larger question about what you expect for your federal tax dollars... I expect the feds to have a plan and funding inplace to deal with disasters...

Apparently, we don't agree on that...

As for Katrina being some kind of tool for bashing Bush let me remind you how this thread started... On another thread I challenged a Bush-supporter to pick any danged policy Bush policy that that GUEST chooze that he or she thought they could defend... Thie GUEST chooze Katrina... That's the way it went down, my friend... One of yer buddies chooze Katrina and as eye I have not read too much in the way of a health rebuttal to the points I made last October...

And please don't confuse disasters with responses to disasters... Here, Bush get a break... He didn't 'cause Katrina... All ghe did was gut the funding for the one federal agency that had for many years had the resources and staff to coordinate disaster relief...

Bobert