| | | |
Holo Lukaloa
|
2/28/2009 4:20:11 AM
Jindal told outright lies in his speech the other night.
Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False
By Zachary Roth - February 27, 2009, 12:39PM
Looks like the game is up.
Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?
Turns out it wasn't actually, you know, true.
In the last few days, first Daily Kos, and then TPMmuckraker, raised serious questions about the story, based in part on the fact that no news reports we could find place Jindal in the affected area at the specific time at issue.
Jindal had described being in the office of Sheriff Harry Lee "during Katrina," and hearing him yelling into the phone at a government bureaucrat who was refusing to let him send volunteer boats out to rescue stranded storm victims, because they didn't have the necessary permits. Jindal said he told Lee, "that's ridiculous," prompting Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.
But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.
This is no minor difference. Jindal's presence in Lee's office during the crisis itself was a key element of the story's intended appeal, putting him at the center of the action during the maelstrom. Just as important, Jindal implied that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. But it turns out Jindal wasn't there at the key moment, and played no role in making the rescue happen.
There's a larger point here, though. The central anecdote of the GOP's prime-time response to President Obama's speech, intended to illustrate the threat of excessive government regulation, turns out to have been made up.
Maybe it's time to rethink the premise.
Late Update: Politico's Ben Smith has updated his post with the following:
UPDATE: I'd initially misunderstood Sellers to be saying Jindal and Lee didn't meet while rescue efforts were still underway. In fact, she said, the conversation took place in the aftermath of the storm, but after the boat incident.
"Bobby and I walked into harry lee's office - he's yelling on the phone about a decision he's already made," Jindal chief of staff Timmy Teepell recalled. "He's saying this is a decision I made, and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me."
Teepell said the exchange took place in the week following Katrina, when Jindal visited Jefferson Parish multiple times.
"He was boots on the ground all the time," he said.
This doesn't seem to bear on the key question. As we said, the key elements of Jindal's story were that he was in Lee's office during the crisis itself, and that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. Neither of those things was true, it now seems.
|
|
Kevin White
|
2/28/2009 4:29:35 AM
Unbelievable.
Really?
How absolutely desperately political.
I cannot fathom that a politician might lie.
lol ...
Well, H ... you posted the title ...
Good thing Obama is a saint.
:^D
K-
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
2/28/2009 4:44:59 AM
He learned it from Hilary and her "bullet dodging" story ... who learned it from Bill and his "I did not have sex with that woman" story ... Who learned it from Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes" story ... who learned it from Reagan's "We never sold arms to Iran" story ... who learned it from Nixon's"Watergate Break-in" Story ... and on and on ...
Holo ... you should know by now the only time a politician isn't lying is when his lips aren't moving ... and that's only just time for him to think up some more lies in his head ...
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
2/28/2009 8:10:21 AM
You haven't given him a chance at all, proving that you have been insincere from the getgo. What lies are you referring to?
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
2/28/2009 1:35:18 PM
Your points are utterly stupid. There are only a few lobbyists exempt but the Obama administration is by far the most strict on that of anybody in your lifetime. How pathetic that you'd use that as an example. It shows how ignorant you are.
Many economists have called this the worst financial situation since the Great Depression. What right wing radio show are you listening to?
|
|
|
2/28/2009 2:37:43 PM
"Many economists have called this the worst financial situation since the Great Depression. What right wing radio show are you listening to?"
Which is all the more reason for the present administration to increase taxes on the very people most capable of creating a healthy economy even more.. Pure genius.
|
|
Psyche's Muse
|
2/28/2009 3:23:05 PM
I can see your point, Larree, about not thinking things are so bad, but did you know that it took the better part of two years before the "Great Depression" set in. There was this "so-so" period before the magnitude of what had happened was finally realized. Afterward the Bankruptcy Law(solution for the current mortgage situation) was enacted, as was the Social Security Act, Glass/Steagall(separation of financial vs. commercial banking) and later the FDIC(no one would place their money in banks otherwise).
Here's a trip down Memory Lane:
It was the Republicans who wanted to invest our Social Security funds in the Stock Market. While they were unsuccessful at this endeavor, imagine the consequences had they been.
Republicans also overturned Glass/Steagall(although FDIC remained). The differences between regular banks and commerce banks disappeared. The permissible loaning of eleven dollars for every one dollar in securities expanded into thirty dollars being loaned out on every one dollar. Unscrupulous lending also became permitted in ALL lending institutions as they competed against one another.
Then the Republicans nullified the Bankruptcy laws which placed the borrowers once again at the "mercy" of the banks enabling them to be kicked out of their homes by the banks during a financial crisis. Had this one law alone remained in place the Sub-Prime lending would have been averted because the banks' losses would not have been protected. Any borrower could file for Bankruptcy and keep their home, no questions asked.
During the "Great Depression" there was a CONTRACTION in the money supply. This fed on itself until virtually EVERYTHING came to a stand-still. Most economists believe that had MONEY BEEN ADDED into the economy the Depression could have been averted. Republicans know this too and are in agreement with it. That is why last year's "Stimulus Package" wasn't met with their cat-calls of "SOCIALISM!". Most of them are now preying on public sentiment and/or ignorance just to regain their power. They trust the public to have either short memories or no memory at all. They'll tell you exactly what you want to hear and then do whatever pleases them when given the chance. Just look at what they did with their "Contract With America" and you'll see just what I mean. As far as I am concerned THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE! I voted Republican and "we" had it all... or so I thought. This crisis was no secret to those on Capital Hill... NONE OF THEM! In fact both parties aided and abetted its coming. BOTH PARTIES ARE RATS! Hilary was the ordained Democrat and John was the ordained Republican. It seems to me that the ONLY unexpected turn of events here was Obama's winning of the election.
And we've yet to see the worst of what lies ahead economically. The deal is done and the downward spiral is in motion. I can tell you this though. No matter what the Republicans say it won't be of Obama's doing. Barak just happens to be our President. And that is all.
-M-
|
|
|
2/28/2009 3:43:27 PM
---- Updated 2/28/2009 3:44:42 PM
"No matter what the Republicans say it won't be of Obama's doing. Barak just happens to be our President. And that is all."
No matter what you say this began during the Clinton Administration and carried on through the Bush terms when Congressional oversite into the FNM/FRE scandal was repeatedly blocked by folks who were not Republicans since you're so obsessed with party affiliation.
And any first year economics student can tell you that repeating the mistakes Hoover made is not the right course for economic future of this country. All he has to do it what JFK did when he became president, who Ronald Reagan credited for the economic reforms he set in motion that rescued us from a crises far worse than the one we're in now.
So no.., he just doesn't happen to be our President as you put it. He obviously knows what the right choice is. But as his voting record as Senator of Illinois clearly demonstrated he is incapable of ever going against his idealogical indoctrination in every decision he's ever made.
Jindel-Forbes 2012
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
2/28/2009 3:58:16 PM
Sterling I'm suprised you would want somebody for president that has such bad judgment that in his very first moment in full media spotlight, he chooses to tell a false self-glorifying anecdote about himself that was easily discredited. Then again you were for Palin too. You seem to prefer absolute idiots for your candidates.
|
|
Psyche's Muse
|
2/28/2009 6:00:43 PM
The "Real Stimulus Package" came earlier and wasn't called what it was until it was over. It's beginning was the start of a "credit bubble". This would result in a "demand bubble", "housing bubble", "employment bubble", "purchasing bubble", etc. etc. The Stock Market would rise to new heights! Hurrah! All this "fictitious", "frivolous", "unnecessary" and "manipulated" activity benefits the Government. Their ability to "TAX" basically every transfer/transaction made with money gets them fatter and fatter. They brag of the great job they do evidenced by all this great economic expansion. The people are happy. The people are employed. They are buying things hand over fist. Everybody wins! Right? Wrong! This is a Great Deception! It is just as "false" and just as "perpetuated" an activity as anything Obama is being accused of today. It was ALL CONTRIVED! NONE OF IT WAS REAL! IT WAS MERE ILLUSION! BOOM AND BUST! BOOM AND BUST! THAT IS INEVITABLY THE CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM IN A NUTSHELL! UNLESS THEY ARE PLACED UNDER CONTROL WE ARE DOOMED TO BOOM AND BUST!
-M-
|
|
|
2/28/2009 6:22:55 PM
|
|
never never band
|
2/28/2009 6:46:23 PM
""Jindel-Forbes 2012""
HA HGA HA H AHA HA!!!!!!
ha ha hya ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!
heh...
cough....
wow.
|
|
Psyche's Muse
|
3/1/2009 12:57:49 PM
It would be interesting to see what hearings on Fanny and Freddie transpired between the years 2000 and 2004... when the Republicans had COMPLETE control. Wasn't Barney Frank sounding the alarm? The same guy who was rallying in defense under Democratic control suddenly changes his tune when the Republicans take over. The point is that NOTHING substantial happened in relation to this problem. And it did not matter WHO held it within their power to do so.
I am Independent, NOT Democrat. Yet, I WAS Republican inclined. I drank their cool-aid! I believed them! I felt that all "we" needed was to give the Republicans control of both Houses and the Executive for things to get better. Boy, was I ever wrong! The problems we have today ARE Party related though. BOTH Parties are guilty as sin. The only reason I mention "Republican" so much is because I hate the fact that all this new "populous" rhetoric coming from them is striking a chord with Patriotic Americans. The Republicans do not deserve ANY support from the disgruntled masses. What we need is a REAL SOLUTION to our problems. And all the Democrat and the Republican have to offer is a DIFFERENT TYPE OF DISTRACTION while both of them continue "beating around the bushes". It is as if BOTH PARTIES ARE AFRAID to "take the bull by the horns". Or is it because neither side ever intends to do what is in the best interest of the common folk because both of them are in the pocket of the wealthy. Corruption MUST be dealt with first and foremost. Until this happens we are doomed to more of the same... which is gross negligence, malfeasance, theft and ultimately financial and national ruin.
-M-
|
|
|
3/1/2009 2:38:20 PM
---- Updated 3/1/2009 2:44:46 PM
"It would be interesting to see what hearings on Fanny and Freddie transpired between the years 2000 and 2004... when the Republicans had COMPLETE control. Wasn't Barney Frank sounding the alarm?"
As you requested..
|
|
Psyche's Muse
|
3/1/2009 6:41:20 PM
I've seen that one, Sterling... although I wasn't aware that it was from 2003. I just remember Frank actually saying the opposite thing as well, and whether before or after 2003 doesn't really matter. What matters to me is that HE SPEAKS OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH! Believe me, I'm no fan of the Democratic Party. As for elected officials, the only person I despise more than Barney Frank is Charles Schumer. The fact still remains that for almost EIGHT YEARS, apparently even while the White House was sounding the alarms, the Republicans could have FORCED something be done about it and didn't. Prove THAT to be wrong. I really wish that you could.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
3/1/2009 6:54:10 PM
It is just so remarkably stupid that the Rebups ran up a record deficit for 8 years and now they're crying doomsday when the nation voted for a change from their incompetence.
I can't even believe the sad batch of buffoons they're trotting out as leaders.
drug adled Rush Limbaugh, their keynote guy - a joke
Sarah Palin - more airheaded than most small town women - a joke
Bobby Jindal - a joke
Eric Cantor - a joke
Newt Gingerich - a joke
John Boehner - a joke
Michael Steele - a joke
These people aren 't qualified to be in student council. :>)
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
3/1/2009 7:51:03 PM
Yes I saw some of it, what an embarrassment. If you take those clowns seriously you're even more stupid than I thought.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
3/2/2009 12:15:33 AM
Your brain is hopelessly broken if you can tolerate 80 minutes of Rush. Romney is a hapless bore.
|
|
never never band
|
3/2/2009 12:55:59 AM
Holo, you know bud, when you show no intellectual curiosity about Republican ideas and economic positions it makes all of your positions suspect. I'm with you on most of what you say, but if you cant even listen to opposing points of view and give them serious consideration you aren't helping the national discussion.
I think repealing the tax breaks given to the wealthiest Americans is Sound economic stimulus policy, mainly because economists have shown that every dollar spent on tax breaks only puts $1.06 back into the economy, and as such tax breaks are not stimulative in and of themselves. Strangely the most stimulative things are bottom up socialism. Food Stamps are one of the greatest stimulus programs because every dollar spent on Food Stamp puts $1.80 back into the economy almost immediately!
Public Works, maintaining and rebuilding the commons is Very stimulative, about $1.60 for every dollar invested.
The GOP is trying to take the concept of "economic stimulus" and turn it into an argument about broad socio-economic philosophy, that's disingenuous.
It's a discussion for another time, but they seem to me to be making political hay right now because the average citizen has no idea what "economic Stimulus" might mean..
as for the lending industry, regulation, de-regulation, Fanny/Freddie, CRA loans, bad morgages and the power of the lending institutions to disguise bad assets through bundling and nonsense, in other words ""who really brought the house down""...etc, that's a far more involved subject than any of us here seem to want to make it. It has some Partisan implications, but really not in the way we keep presenting it with these blurbs and talking points. It's the sort of discussion that needs more space than we ever seem to give it.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
3/2/2009 1:05:05 AM
Because I don't want to listen to 80 minutes of Rush, I don't have intellectual curiosity about the Repubs? You go listen to 80 minutes of Rush first and then come tell me this. :>)
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
3/2/2009 1:46:50 AM
That would be colorful, surely, but Keith could just rest his case by saying
. . . See the last 8 years. . . .
We will never see a president worse than Bush in our lifetimes and that's why anybody who wants to judge Obama before he gets a chance to turn things around is obviously flailing.
|
|
|
3/2/2009 2:36:41 PM
---- Updated 3/2/2009 2:39:20 PM
" I just remember Frank actually saying the opposite thing as well, and whether before or after 2003 doesn't really matter."
If he did any such thing it would be a matter of public record but it's not. Barney Frank blocked congressional oversight every time the Republicans tried to regulate the FRE-FMN debacle..., every time but you are welcome to PROVE otherwise.
|
|
| |
�2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |