Connect with us

Gov Romney Refused Emergency Funds — And Talk — For 2006 Flood Victims

Published

on

Mitt Romney, as Massachusetts Governor in 2006, refused to distribute his state’s copious emergency funds to Lowell city residents who had lost their homes to “the great Mother’s Day floods of 2006,” as Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce reports:

The right-leaning Lowell Sun was particularly displeased.

We find it inconceivable that Gov. Mitt Romney claims the state can do nothing to help those residents still struggling to rebuild homes and businesses after the May flood. Massachusetts is sitting on millions in unspent emergency funds from Hurricane Katrina and more than $1 billion in cash reserves, yet Romney has failed to even respond to the Lowell delegation’s requests to discuss additional aid for victims. The governor’s spokesman — since Romney can’t be bothered to comment now that the photo opportunities have dried up even though some residents’ basements haven’t — said the state will not consider spending its own money for flood victims until it’s clear how much cash the federal government will give.

A local online news site reported the scene like this:

Crews floated boats down flooded streets to rescue people trapped in their homes, overflowing pipes spewed sewage into streets and rivers and hundreds fled homes and businesses Monday as New England braced for its worst flooding since the 1930s.

The flood waters overwhelmed sewage systems and drowned waste water treatment plants. Burst pipes in Haverhill have been dumping 35 million gallons of waste a day since Sunday into the Merrimack River. And the flood at a regional treatment plant in Lawrence was threatening to shut down the power there, which would send sewage into the Merrimack at a rate of 115 million gallons a day.

“This is a level of crisis which is beyond anything these communities have ever experienced from water in their history,” Gov. Mitt Romney said Monday.

“It’s going to get worse before it gets better,” Romney said.

Romney then went on “Good Morning America” and “described the flooding as ‘almost Biblical’ and said ‘We’re sort of making jokes about Noah and taking two of each kind of animal because we haven’t ever seen rain like this’,” according to Wikipedia.

And then his PR stunt show was over.

Reporting that “abdicating on government flood relief was one of the first steps” Romney took to paint himself as, well, a “severely conservative Governor” — to quote Mitt himself — Esquire’s Pierce, a constituent of then-Governor Romney, adds that Mitt “pretty much had given up his job as governor and was gearing up for the seven-year run at the presidency that will climax, one way or the other, next Tuesday night.”

Imploring readers his Esquire readers to “trust us,” Pierce — whose report is laced with other ugliness about Governor Flip Flop — closes with this intimate assessment:

“We know this guy. There’s a reason why he’s going to lose this state by more than 20 points. The only thing about him that you can depend on is that there’s never any room in the lifeboat for The Help.”

For more local color, consider this from a right-wing local Massachusetts blogger, writing about the flood and Romney’s response, dated May 17, 2006:

Our elected officials are on the front line, and their mettle is on the line now too. We were pleased with first impressions, but all too soon our Republican Massachusetts leaders of choice revealed their feet of clay. We caught Lieutenant Governor Healey saying something to the effect that this sort of thing would be common now, given global warming.

At the same time, the man who would be Leader of the Free World — Oh, sweet Mitt of life, at last I’ve found you? — played a most disagreeable disgrace card on “Good Morning America” with the silken, fawning Diane Sawyer:

“We’re continuing to be very, very careful and going through our neighborhoods, securing them, and making sure there is no looting of any kind,” Romney added.

The remarks puzzled local officials, who reported no incidents of looting in the Bay State, New Hampshire or Maine, and prompted experts to question if Romney was raising red flags for no reason — or for political reasons.

Politics are the way of the world, but without knowing anything more about it, this one left a bad taste in our fiercely independent New England, home-rule mouth. We aren’t like those folks down yonder in New Orleans, our local-pride first response told us. Mitt owes us more respect. Kerry Healey, too. We weren’t born yesterday.

Nor were we.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘I Don’t Think She Survives This’: Gabbard Faces Blowback After ‘Devastating’ Testimony

Published

on

Rumors continue to swirl about Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard‘s future as critics on Wednesday slammed her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, especially when she declared that it is not the Intelligence Community’s “responsibility” to determine what constitutes an imminent national security threat — a claim that received tremendous blowback.

“Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?” asked U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

“The Intelligence Community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability,” Gabbard replied.

“Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, yes or no?” Ossoff pressed.

“Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president,” Gabbard responded.

READ MORE: ‘Reeks of a Coverup’: DOJ Official Accused of Blocking ‘Mysterious’ Epstein Probe Document

“False,” Ossoff replied. “This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.”

Podcaster Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq War veteran and founder of a veterans nonprofit, slammed Gabbard’s remarks.

“I don’t think she survives this,” Rieckhoff wrote. “She’s already not trusted in Trump world as a former Democrat. And not trusted by most people period. Sooner or later, Trump is gonna dump her and blame her.”

“But like Noem, Hegseth, and so many others, she shouldn’t have been there in [the] first place,” he added. “And anyone who voted for her is responsible for this mess now. It’s all coming to the fore now. They are all being revealed. That’s what war does. Especially forever war that is now overflowing beyond US control. Our enemies are celebrating yet again. And we are all less safe. More and more by the minute.”

The Steady State, a group of 400 former national security officials, denounced Gabbard’s claim that “the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.”

READ MORE: ‘He Was Aware’: Former Top Adviser Refutes Trump’s Denials on Iran Risks

The group called her remark “flatly incompatible with her statutory obligation to provide ‘timely, objective, and independent of political considerations’ national intelligence assessments of threats to Congress.”

Mark Seddon, a former speechwriter for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, called Gabbard’s testimony “devastating.”

“The fact that DNI Tulsi Gabbard does not believe it is the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine if a threat is imminent is disqualifying for her to be the National Intelligence Director,” wrote retired U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer Travis Akers. “That is one, among many, of the primary responsibilities of the IC.”

READ MORE: ‘Grave Concern’: Democrats Demand DHS Preserve All Corey Lewandowski Records

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Reeks of a Coverup’: DOJ Official Accused of Blocking ‘Mysterious’ Epstein Probe Document

Published

on

The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee is accusing a prominent Department of Justice official, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, of blocking access to the details of what he is calling a “mysterious Epstein investigation.”

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) called the move “stunning interference,” and said that the document “literally says ‘unclassified’ at the top.”

“Given Blanche’s close personal ties to Donald Trump,” Wyden added, “this reeks of a continued coverup to protect key names in the Trump administration.”

Wyden also said that Blanche, whom he noted was Trump’s personal attorney, and “was also responsible for Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer to a cushy club fed … has intervened to block the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] from providing details of a mysterious Epstein investigation to my Finance Committee team.”

READ MORE: ‘Is Tulsi Next?’ Questions Swirl About Future of National Intelligence Director

Wyden wrote: “Recent reporting revealed that Epstein was one of several targets of a big drug trafficking investigation a decade ago. DEA has key info. Based on what we know, Epstein was likely pumping his victims, young women and girls, with incapacitating drugs to facilitate abuse.”

The Democratic lawmaker pointed to a Bloomberg News article that said, “A Department of Justice document combined with interviews reveal that a long-running investigation into organized crime led law enforcement to suspect the serial sex abuser of money laundering, distributing ‘club drugs’ and operating a prostitution ring.”

He said that his team “immediately sought key documents from that investigation.”

“What was the result, and why did the investigation end?” he asked. “We were notified that the DEA intended to release those documents to the Finance Committee. Then Deputy AG Todd Blanche intervened.”

A separate Bloomberg Government report stated that “Blanche is blocking the Drug Enforcement Administration from releasing an unredacted document from the Jeffrey Epstein files about an investigation involving drug trafficking and money laundering, according to a letter Democratic Senator Ron Wyden sent to Blanche on Tuesday.”

READ MORE: ‘He Was Aware’: Former Top Adviser Refutes Trump’s Denials on Iran Risks

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘He Was Aware’: Former Top Adviser Refutes Trump’s Denials on Iran Risks

Published

on

A prominent former senior adviser to President Donald Trump is disputing his claim that “nobody” knew Iran would target neighboring nations or close the Strait of Hormuz if the U.S. attacked, saying that he personally warned him of those possibilities.

John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser during his first term, “said that on multiple occasions he brought up scenarios in which Iran was attacked and responded with retaliatory strikes in the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere,” The Hill reported.

“Well, I know for a fact that he was aware of those potentials. I raised the option of regime change in Iran several times during the time I was national security adviser,” Bolton told CNN.

“If you’re going to embark” on attacking Iran, Bolton added, “you better have answers” to how Iran would respond, “and certainly closing the Strait of Hormuz was always one of them and so were attacks on the Gulf Arab states, particularly their oil infrastructure, so he knew about it in his first term.”

“I find it hard to believe that he forgot about it in the intervening years,” the former Trump NSA said.

“Nobody, nobody, no, no, no,” President Trump said when asked if anyone had told him how Iran would retaliate. “No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years.”

Trump also said this week that Iran wasn’t “supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East. Those missiles were set to go after them. So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. Nobody expected that. We were shocked.”

READ MORE: ‘Is Tulsi Next?’ Questions Swirl About Future of National Intelligence Director

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.