Skip to comments.
Why did it take Clinton 8 DAYS to visit the flood area in 1997?
CNN ^
Posted on 09/14/2005 2:27:29 PM PDT by JohnRand
"...April 14, 1997 Web posted at: 2:05 p.m. EDT (0605 GMT)
(CNN) -- The flooded Red River was past its high-water mark at Fargo, North Dakota, and nearby Moorhead, Minnesota, Monday, as Fargo moved into a post-flood cleanup mode."
http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9704/14/floods.update/index.html
"GRAND FORKS, N.D. (AllPolitics, April 22) -- President Bill Clinton, in his role as consoler-in-chief, toured the flood-ravaged upper Midwest today and declared the federal government will help people there rebuild their homes and lives."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/22/earth.floods/
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; clinton; flood; katrina; katrinafacts; mdm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
There are two stories linked above related to the historic 1997 Red River Valley flood. I'm not sure if I'm linking them correctly on here so please accept my apologies!! But at any rate Fargo, ND was flooded April 14, 1997 and President Clinton visited the area 8 days later on April 22, 1997 and was hailed by CNN as the "consoler-in-chief" and NOT hammered by the media, the Governor of ND, or the Mayors of Fargo or Grand Forks as being uncaring or racist for not visiting the area for 8 days!
1
posted on
09/14/2005 2:27:31 PM PDT
by
JohnRand
To: JohnRand
Well, you see, he was too busy feeling their pain.
2
posted on
09/14/2005 2:29:21 PM PDT
by
atomicpossum
(Replies should be as pedantic as possible. I love that so much.)
To: atomicpossum
Feeling that among other things, no doubt.
3
posted on
09/14/2005 2:30:50 PM PDT
by
M203M4
To: JohnRand
4
posted on
09/14/2005 2:31:09 PM PDT
by
KJC1
To: JohnRand
Why did it take Clinton 8 DAYS to visit the flood area in 1997?OK, I'll bite, why...?
5
posted on
09/14/2005 2:31:44 PM PDT
by
Snardius
To: JohnRand
BILL CLINTON DOESN'T CARE ABOUT POOR WHITE FARMERS!I want someone to find the Sink-Stainer's schedule for that week....I want to know what was more important than visiting the citizens of this country who were being flooded out!!
6
posted on
09/14/2005 2:32:24 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
To: JohnRand
Clinton never visited the WTC site in February '93 either.
7
posted on
09/14/2005 2:32:27 PM PDT
by
jdm
To: JohnRand
And the area is still not rebuilt. I ber NO gets done before ND does.
8
posted on
09/14/2005 2:32:49 PM PDT
by
satchmodog9
(Murder and weather are our only news)
To: JohnRand
To: M203M4
"Feeling that among other things, no doubt."
Took him awhile to get his pants back on. Our former prez, The National Disgrace.
10
posted on
09/14/2005 2:33:45 PM PDT
by
hsalaw
To: JohnRand
If CNN sees this, they'll delete the archived HTML file.
11
posted on
09/14/2005 2:34:48 PM PDT
by
jdm
To: JohnRand
I heard on Rush's show this week, that Clinton's FEMA was 30 days getting in an area after hurricane Floyd (I think it was) because of so much flooding.
I'm sorry I don't remember the state though. I zoned in on the "30 days" and "Clinton's FEMA" and didn't commit the rest to memory.
To: JohnRand
13
posted on
09/14/2005 2:35:41 PM PDT
by
sure_fine
(*not one to over kill the thought process*)
To: JohnRand
Bill was busy with the issues of State !!!!
To: JohnRand
Why did it take Clinton 8 DAYS to visit the flood area in 1997?It was the one time in his life when he really WAS compassionate.
15
posted on
09/14/2005 2:36:21 PM PDT
by
DeeOhGee
(If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.)
To: JohnRand
"I'll be right there"
To: JohnRand
Why did it take Clinton 8 DAYS to visit the flood area in 1997? It took 8 days becasue there's no hurry when you're a dem.
Clinton was a hero for showing up after 8 days. Same flood, same time, and had it been Bush, he would have been the goat.
Two standards. One for them, one for us.
17
posted on
09/14/2005 2:39:46 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
To: JohnRand
Archive those stories now. It's guaranteed the Leftists will be removing them soon!
18
posted on
09/14/2005 2:41:50 PM PDT
by
Prime Choice
(E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
To: JohnRand
Not too many votes available for Ol' Slick out in that area.
To: JohnRand
It was nasty, dangerous and what good would it have done? He probably figured he would wait until it was COMPLETELY safe. I don't blame him. He has a family too and I wouldn't want MY husband down there when they didn't and STILL don't appreciate what he was doing.
20
posted on
09/14/2005 2:50:01 PM PDT
by
WasDougsLamb
(just my opinion. Go easy on me.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson