Wall Street Change offers simple, logical solutions to tough economic problems
that appear to have been caused by Wall Street Investment Fraud.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Should President George Bush be Impeached over the Rampant Flood Damage that is still Days and Weeks Away?

Nobody knows at this point how much damage the Flooding along Iowa and on down the Mississippi River and surrounding areas will cause. But the FACT that NOTHING by the government is being done to mitigate the floodwaters before they do new damage downstream, is very disconcerting to me.

Is the lesson learned from New Orleans to simply get FEMA in place as soon as possible and help flood victims, is that all has been learned? Of all the types of non-man made disasters, slow motion floods fall into a different category simply because their damage can go on for days and weeks as the mass of water moves downstream to new locations, causing more and more devastation.
If President Bush thinks his only responsibility is to monitor flood damage that has already occurred, acknowledge that more damage is to come, visit the flooded location, and dole out money that isn't his, he could be charged with reckless disregard for the american citizen, and I think this kind of reaction is worthy of impeachment charges being brought against him.

If you found out that 100 billion dollars in damage related to the floods was going to occur, and that damage could have been cut in half to 50 billion dollars with a 5 billion dollar influx of governmental resources, resources that would have both created jobs while reducing flood damages, wouldn't that mean that the government just squandered 45 billion dollars of taxpayers money?

Is George Bush's government about spending money to fight wars in other countries while disregarding the welfare of people in his own country?

MInimal, insignificant action on the homefront by George Bush as it relates to PREVENTING additional flood damage is not acceptable. I consider that to be reason enough for impeachment. Who in congress is on the president's case to do more? To make sure resources besides money are in place to reduce future flood damages? Or is congress fearful that if they speak up now, their region will get less funds after the flood waters have receded?

Is this the best that we can do?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

negligence isn't impeachable. period.

A.M. said...

What constitutes neglience?

Not knowing the very basics of what a persons job as president is, is definitely means for impeachment.

Not having the foresight to plan and have ready viable resources for REDUCING the actual flood damage BEFORE it happens, is also grounds for impeachment.

Impeachment does not mean removal from office, it just means the bringing of charges. At least let President Bush defend his lethargy towards the american people.

Share Gadget