Could Bush Have Done More

[TexMex]

It is complex, but the way most posters are bringing in the mayor and governor is jsut to say, "So what, they're MORE to blame." Ok, if we concede that, why did he leave them, or her, in charge if legally he could have acted?

So....you think Clinton or any other POTUS would have not left the Gov in charge? The President can Federalize control over a state’s guard on his own order, but doing so without a Governor’s consent to deal with an in state natural disaster would be a supreme insult to the Governor and the state. In addition, using Federal troops for local police actions is against the law and has been since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

 

[TexMex]

That is one specific act. So, he had the power to do more. The governor didn't stop him, and she was calling the shots, right? So he did that. Why did he falter later?

Actually it's two acts

1. Army Corps of Engineers repairing the levee.

2. Coast Guard

These are agencies UNDER HIS CONTROL.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Ok. But if those people can't get past it to consider Bush's response fairly, perhaps they're not in the right frame of mind to discuss it. If you're (generic) resorting personal attacks on me and high fiving those making them, then maybe this is one topic you can't discuss yet. I know I'm too upset to discuss the subject of one thread. I started two responses and each time stopped because I was too emotional and I didn't think my tone would help.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

It is tough, I agree. It's an emotional issue. We (WS) are just a tiny sample of the bigger society, divided in many ways over this, and pulling together in other ways.

Regarding the high -fiving, etc., that goes on here both ways, on different threads. Human nature. Man, I hate going to the PP. It's absolutely wicked over there, and a lot more personal a lot of the time.

I thought your idea of starting the topical threads was a good one, and yeah, heck, it's gone OT just like so many of them do. I will try to respect your wishes, but sometimes it's hard NOT to agree with someone, or put my own :twocents: into it.

If there is a thread started more centered on the local/state level, to discuss that, maybe that's where I need to hang out, as it is a definite interest to me.
Thanks.

 

[Dara]

Personally, I don't consider myself deflecting blame. I'm just focused on understanding, from the ground floor up, what happened in the beginning...and moving on up. It will get to FEMA and Bush, it will. But since I don't truly understand and know all the details, timelines, etc., I don't know EXACTLY what to blame on him. It will take time. Lord knows everyday we're learning more.

Ok. If you feel it's too soon to discuss, I guess I can expect more posts from you as more information comes out. I don't know what else to say.

It's no different than any investigation done here at work. We start at the beginning, the lowest level and go on up the chain-of-command. Who knew what, and when. I can't blame one of the supervisors when I don't fully understand what the subordinate did or did not do. And when did the supervisor become aware of it? And then what did he do to try to resolve it? Did the supervisor handle it within procedure, and properly? If not, a whole new investigation is begun. And round and round we go. But it always starts from the "incident."
JMHO.

Right. Just your opinion. You want to start at the bottom. It's a good thing there are plenty of threads where there are other people who also want to start there. Do you also think it's too soon for people to be saying Bush is NOT to blame? That he did all he could? Where's your post to them?

 

[Dara]

Actually it's two acts

1. Army Corps of Engineers repairing the levee.

2. Coast Guard

These are agencies UNDER HIS CONTROL.

Ok. And he apparently could have had the National Guard, too, if he wanted them. We sure needed them in there.

 

[Ntegrity]

Hurricane Katrina timeline

 

[Dara]

It is tough, I agree. It's an emotional issue. We (WS) are just a tiny sample of the bigger society, divided in many ways over this, and pulling together in other ways.

Regarding the high -fiving, etc., that goes on here both ways, on different threads. Human nature. Man, I hate going to the PP. It's absolutely wicked over there, and a lot more personal a lot of the time.

I thought your idea of starting the topical threads was a good one, and yeah, heck, it's gone OT just like so many of them do. I will try to respect your wishes, but sometimes it's hard NOT to agree with someone, or put my own :twocents: into it.

If there is a thread started more centered on the local/state level, to discuss that, maybe that's where I need to hang out, as it is a definite interest to me.
Thanks.

Thanks. I don't want you to not put in your two cents, but if it's only to say it's too soon to talk about it, all I can really say back is, not to me. But I welcome your insights.

I also haven't seen you high five a personal attack, but if you did :slap:

(kidding)

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Ok. If you feel it's too soon to discuss, I guess I can expect more posts from you as more information comes out. I don't know what else to say.

Right. Just your opinion. You want to start at the bottom. It's a good thing there are plenty of threads where there are other people who also want to start there. Do you also think it's too soon for people to be saying Bush is NOT to blame? That he did all he could? Where's your post to them?

I think I've been quite consistent, I don't think I've ever said Bush is NOT to blame.

And yes, it is my opinion. Yours is quite clear, I won't change your mind. Mine is clear, I like starting at the bottom and going up. I hope you respect that as well.

 

[TexMex]

Ok. And he apparently could have had the National Guard, too, if he wanted them. We sure needed them in there.

All the Gov had to do was ask. She didn't. She wanted the 'control'.

The National Guard reports to the Gov.

 

[Dara]

So....you think Clinton or any other POTUS would have not left the Gov in charge? The President can Federalize control over a state’s guard on his own order, but doing so without a Governor’s consent to deal with an in state natural disaster would be a supreme insult to the Governor and the state. In addition, using Federal troops for local police actions is against the law and has been since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

I don't know. FEMA was stronger in Clinton's day, so maybe it wouldn't have been necessary. But if the governor was such a problem, perhaps. I do know that in this case, a supreme insult would have saved lives, and I think Clinton would have been more likely to do it if it were needed.

Bush, it appears, legally could have done more. It must be hard to risk fallout from using a little-used act, but it appears he could have.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Thanks. I don't want you to not put in your two cents, but if it's only to say it's too soon to talk about it, all I can really say back is, not to me. But I welcome your insights.

I also haven't seen you high five a personal attack, but if you did :slap:

(kidding)

(Snickered)

 

[Dara]

All the Gov had to do was ask. She didn't. She wanted the 'control'.

The National Guard reports to the Gov.

Right. All she had to do was ask. Which she quite posssibly did (New Mexico, White House didn't approve until Thursday). I understand that. She should have done a lot of things and not done others, and she is likely to blame for many things, many deaths. She could be the anti-Christ, secretly dancing gleefully in front of an altar because people were dying in the streets and areas of NO. That doesn't change whether or not Bush could have federalized the troops earlier.

 

[TexMex]

Hurricane Katrina timeline

Muchas Gracias Ntegrity

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Hurricane Katrina timeline

Thanks! Skimmed through it, I will write notes later...

 

[TexMex]

Right. All she had to do was ask. That doesn't change whether or not Bush could have federalized the troops earlier.

The role of the Feds is to provide assistance when asked--Bush did.

I'm getting the feeling that nothing Bush does would ever be alright with you.

You started a whole thread to bash the Pres when you don't have all the facts on his role in the matter.

 

[Dara]

The role of the Feds is to provide assistance when asked--Bush did.

That is not the only role.

I'm getting the feeling that nothing Bush does would ever be alright with you.

You would be wrong. And you are, imo, concerning yourself far too much with my motivations and beliefs without much self-reflection.

You started a whole thread to bash the Pres when you don't have all the facts on his role in the matter.

That is an untrue statement. I did not start a thread to bash the president. I started a thread to discuss his role in this crisis, and hopefully discuss if he could have done more. I feel he could have, but I also am trying to figure out the particulars. For you to deem if bashing is quote revealing, imo.

But please feel free to go scold the starters of any other threads that were discuss the responses of other officials. I don't actually consider them bashing threads, but then I'm not threatened by the opinions of others. I think when people throw the word "bashing" around they're trying to discredit the other person. It's a defense mechanism, I've noticed.

 

[concernedperson]

Wow, this is interesting and unexpected. CNN.com Quick Vote

Which level of government is most responsible for a slow response to Katrina?

Federal 44%

State 18%

Local 16%

They're all equally responsible 22%

 

[Dara]

You don't acknowledge anything the Pres. did right.

In this issue, that's probably right. We could talk about other issues, and my stance might surprise you but more often than not, I am on the other side.

But, TexMex, think about this. If you're keeping track of what I say or don't say, I think you're getting too fixated on me and too defensive on behalf of the president. That reveals a lot, too. You're getting way too personal, imo, and I'd like it to stop.

That reveals much about any motivation to 'discuss' Bush. That's ALL you post about.

Wow, I'm flattered. I'd be more flattered if you got it right. But it's not your place to decide what I should and shouldn't post about. If I really did only post about Bush, which is not true, it's allowed. And as long as I'm posting within the rules, I'm not causing any trouble. I'm just discussing and posting information.

IMO Bush bashing is a reflex to some people.

So is defending him. But so far, the defenders seem to be more emotionally invested, if you look at the posts in which people get personal.

I think mistakes were made at all levels including Feds.

We agree. I thought we could use one thread to discuss President Bush's response, since he is one of the key figures. We already had individual threads for the mayor and the governor. This is the only one that people are objecting to and I started it as evenly as I could. I even used a conservative source.

But the primary people who could have should have DONE MORE---are the Mayor and Gov of NOLA.

I respect your opinion. Fortunately, there are many threads in which extensive discussions are ongoing where you can find like-minded individuals, since that might be what you prefer. You'll even find my posts from in those threads, and Bush isn't even mentioned. Though you claim he's ALL I talk about.

 

[BillyGoatGruff]

I think everyone could have done more. I think FEMA needs to look seriously at it's leadership and make the necessary changes across the board.

But as I have consistently posted, how can we expect the highest rung on the ladder to be able to support evrything when the lower rungs have all given way?

Sure, with hindsight it's easy to say what should have happened with regards to FEMA, but it just isn;t structured as a first repsonder. No matter how much we would like it to be, it isn't. The idea is to aid and assist a city/ state that is already helping itself.
If the lower levels are not holdng up their end of the deal it is virtually impossible for the President or anyone else to save the day. We just watched it happen.
I'll challenge individuals to do their homework on election day.The governor was elected. Do the candidates in your area have your safety as a priority? I can honestly say I have never even looked into it.

Lowest level to highest level had to do their part and it did not happen.

This is very true. I lived in New Orleans for 10 years and I can vouch for the fact the city governent did close to squat re hurricane/disaster preparedness, despite its being below sea level. The atteitude was 9and always has been) every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost down there. It's one of the reasons (akong with the pizz-poor eceonomy and hellacious crime rate) I moved away 13 years ago.

 

[BillyGoatGruff]

As I've said all along, that's more reason for him to take action. I understand state and local government are first responders. But how long should it take if the first responders fail before the president exercises his powers and saves them? What do you think is reasonable?

I can't really see why that's so hard to see. If the leaders were inept, and he could have acted, he should have. It just seems kind of obvious, and I want to know that if we get inept state and local leaders at the next disaster, the president will do what is in his power to help in a reasonable time period. Reasonable. Not as a first responder. Not as the first course of action. But when it is reasonable.

and
When I do say that, be frightened. But that's a twisting of my words, and just the kind of thing I see every time I bring up criticism of Bush. LOL. I'm sorry, but it's so predictable.

However, if news is so widely reported and was conflicting with information he was getting from the governor, shouldn't he maybe think he better find out. Except his two appointees, who are also his eyes and ears, didn't know the basics either. Do you really think if the governor is so inept as most of Bush's defenders are claiming, she could fool him into thinking all was well on the streets of NO and that she had everything under control? If we all heard all those reports of aid being turned away and violence, and it's all her fault and all her decisions, I don't expect him to ignore news reports. There's a discrepancy. Find out what's going on. I'd hope he didn't need the news to keep him involved, since HS told us they were going to be coordinating the effort ( see the White House site) but since his own appointees apparently couldn't keep him informed maybe he should at least monitor the news next time. Or appoint, you know, competent people.

What you're saying is that you expected the federal government to decalre MARTIAL LAW before the disaster occured and negate the powers of the state's elected officals BEFORE the fact. That is bascally not allowed in the constitution, and I think we fought a war over this 140+ years ago.