[RIRedinPA]

Bush, in response to that request said, "Why would I do that?"

Would you keep Brown on at his job or show him the door?

[spacefreak]

The main accusation is that that he didn't get water and food to the Superdome and convention center fast enough, yet now news is out that the Red Cross - FEMA's partner in relief and all ready to go in with truckloads of water and food - were repeatedly refused permission to go in by order of Governor Blanco.

With that said, on what grounds would he deserve being fired?

[Millennium]

There is another wrinkle in this case: it seems that FEMA may have fed Bush misinformation in the days following the hurricane. According to the story, the morning after Katrina hit they told Bush that they had already entered the city, and that everything was under control. If this story is true, it would certainly explain Bush's palpable rage at the head of FEMA in the days following his return from vacation; he's known to have said to Brown at one point "These are not the figures you gave me". It would also, for that matter, explain why Bush remained on vacation: we already know that he relies on the rest of the government to do its job if he thinks things are under control. Whether or not this is a Good Thing is certainly a matter of debate; I am only attempting to explain, not to justify.

If this story is true, then certainly the head of FEMA should be fired and arrested, on charges of presenting false information to the government of the United States. If false, however, then I can see no crime in his actions.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There is another wrinkle in this case: it seems that FEMA may have fed Bush misinformation in the days following the hurricane. According to the story, the morning after Katrina hit they told Bush that they had already entered the city, and that everything was under control. If this story is true, it would certainly explain Bush's palpable rage at the head of FEMA in the days following his return from vacation; he's known to have said to Brown at one point "These are not the figures you gave me"....

Well, that would certainly be a good reason if that's the case. I hadn't heard the "These are not the figures you gave me" quote, though I did notice during an early press conference that Bush seemed to be pissed at Brown for whatever reason.

[ThinkInsane]

I say wait until the investigations are done, and then shitcan everyone that dropped the ball on this, from the bottom to the top. There were monumental failures all the way through, and it cost American citizens their lives. Unacceptable. Those responsible should be held accountable.

[alphasubzero949]

If the head of FEMA is going to be fired, then the head of Homeland Security, the head of emergency services in LA, and everyone else heading the local level, not to mention the President, Governor, and Mayor should all be fired as well.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

If the head of FEMA is going to be fired, then the head of Homeland Security, the head of emergency services in LA, and everyone else heading the local level, not to mention the President, Governor, and Mayor should all be fired as well.

Why LA?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There is another wrinkle in this case: it seems that FEMA may have fed Bush misinformation in the days following the hurricane. According to the story, the morning after Katrina hit they told Bush that they had already entered the city, and that everything was under control. If this story is true, it would certainly explain Bush's palpable rage at the head of FEMA in the days following his return from vacation; he's known to have said to Brown at one point "These are not the figures you gave me". It would also, for that matter, explain why Bush remained on vacation: we already know that he relies on the rest of the government to do its job if he thinks things are under control. Whether or not this is a Good Thing is certainly a matter of debate; I am only attempting to explain, not to justify.

If this story is true, then certainly the head of FEMA should be fired and arrested, on charges of presenting false information to the government of the United States. If false, however, then I can see no crime in his actions.

Good grief, haven't we heard that spin before? Bush was fed wrong information about the WMDs in Iraq, now the spin is he was fed wrong info on the FEMA response in New Orleans?

[Spliffdaddy]

The mayor of New Orleans is in a lot of trouble. Seems the real story is coming to light.

As for folks at the federal level being incompetent...what the hell do you expect? Name one in history that wasn't.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Good grief, haven't we heard that spin before? Bush was fed wrong information about the WMDs in Iraq, now the spin is he was fed wrong info on the FEMA response in New Orleans?

So just because the situations seem to have a couple of superficial similarities, you don't set the merit in investigating the new one? It's very difficult to deny that Bush was clearly very pissed off about something, and he was certainly chewing out Brown about something. If this story is true, it makes a great deal of sense. I know I'd be pissed off if I were in that situation.

[tie]

I don't think he should be fired. He made a mistake, sure, but he should only be fired if he is tried and convicted of a crime, and is unable to perform his duties in jail. Same for Karl Rove. I am really down with the touchy-feely, noone's-to-blame neo-conservatives. Group hug!!

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Why LA?

LA = Louisiana. Don't you remember your state abbreviations?

If the head of FEMA is going to be fired, then yes, fire those in charge in LA (Louisiana) because they were equally as incompetent as those at both the local and federal levels.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

If the head of FEMA is going to be fired, then the head of Homeland Security, the head of emergency services in LA, and everyone else heading the local level, not to mention the President, Governor, and Mayor should all be fired as well.

Sounds good to me. Can we give pink slips to Congress, too?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

LA = Louisiana. Don't you remember your state abbreviations?

True, but I'd imaging more people outside Louisiana associate those initials with the city of Los Angeles than the state of Louisiana. It tripped me up at first, too.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

LA = Louisiana. Don't you remember your state abbreviations?

If the head of FEMA is going to be fired, then yes, fire those in charge in LA (Louisiana) because they were equally as incompetent as those at both the local and federal levels.

Doh!

[Mark Larr]

He is on his way back to DC to be fired for lieing about his qualifications.

Now it's time for the heads of the Mayor and Governor to roll.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Millennium

So just because the situations seem to have a couple of superficial similarities, you don't set the merit in investigating the new one? It's very difficult to deny that Bush was clearly very pissed off about something, and he was certainly chewing out Brown about something. If this story is true, it makes a great deal of sense. I know I'd be pissed off if I were in that situation.

Sure he was chewing Brown out, Brown's incompetence not only cost lives but also has damaged Bush politically. I certainly see the merit in investigating the FEMA and Federal government response in general but I was just pointing out that the groundwork already seems to be being laid for Bush to escape responsibility.

Iraq - the CIA et al fed him bad intelligence.
Katrina - FEMA et al fed him bad information.

So, if the case here is that Brown fed the President bad information regarding how bad Katrina was then shouldn't Brown be fired?

People complain about Reid and Polesi making political hay out of this and I agree, it is despicable but the Bushies are, in my view, trying to cover their political behinds just as well. Looks like the well documented Rove PR blitz is starting - let's pass out the speaking notes to the conservative news radio about how the mayor screwed up, perhaps a swipe at the Gov. of LA as well. Let that build the ground swell and see where it leads.

If Bush wanted to get to the bottom wanted to get to the bottom of this he'd have an independent, non-partisan investigation conducted.

[BlueSky]

Brown has been relieved.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Brown has been relieved.

Relieved, yes. Not fired. He's still the head of FEMA; he's just not commanding this operation.

I suppose it's something, anyway, but if he really did lie about the operation's status then this isn't enough.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The mayor of New Orleans is in a lot of trouble. Seems the real story is coming to light.

As for folks at the federal level being incompetent...what the hell do you expect? Name one in history that wasn't.

Franklin Roosevelt, Hyman Rickover, Abraham Lincoln, to name three.

[OAW]

The man needs to be fired expeditiously. Given the magnitude of this disaster and the abysmal performance of FEMA in the immediate aftermath ... along with what appears to be his uh "embellishment" of his qualifications for the job itself .... his immediate firing seems most appropriate.

Mr. Brown apparently got this position because he was an FOB (Friend of Bush). His background in no way qualifies him to even hold that job. And yes ... it's a blatant example of hypocrisy from Mr. Anti-Affirmative Action, "the best qualified person should get the job" Bush. Apparently that only applies to minorities and not his political cronies.

OAW

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Relieved, yes. Not fired. He's still the head of FEMA; he's just not commanding this operation.

I suppose it's something, anyway, but if he really did lie about the operation's status then this isn't enough.

The media is playing this as if he's being "relieved" of something. He's just going back to Washington to direct FEMA. Did you expect the director of the entire dept. to personally take care of Katrina?

There is more for FEMA to do than to just deal with Katrina. This IS still hurricane season.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW

The man needs to be fired expeditiously. Given the magnitude of this disaster and the abysmal performance of FEMA in the immediate aftermath ... along with what appears to be his uh "embellishment" of his qualifications for the job itself .... his immediate firing seems most appropriate.

Mr. Brown apparently got this position because he was an FOB (Friend of Bush). His background in no way qualifies him to even hold that job. And yes ... it's a blatant example of hypocrisy from Mr. Anti-Affirmative Action, "the best qualified person should get the job" Bush. Apparently that only applies to minorities and not his political cronies.

OAW

FEMA's performance during Katrina is on par with their performance over the years. They suck as an agency in general.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAWMr. Brown apparently got this position because he was an FOB (Friend of Bush). His background in no way qualifies him to even hold that job. And yes ... it's a [b

blatant example of hypocrisy[/b] from Mr. Anti-Affirmative Action, "the best qualified person should get the job" Bush. Apparently that only applies to minorities and not his political cronies.

Mr. Brown is a minority. With an IQ of probably around 50 or 60, he definitely is.

-t

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OAW

The man needs to be fired expeditiously. Given the magnitude of this disaster and the abysmal performance of FEMA in the immediate aftermath ... along with what appears to be his uh "embellishment" of his qualifications for the job itself .... his immediate firing seems most appropriate.

It seems that Brown has been considering resigning for a long time, possibly in November after the hurricane season. I'm willing to bet that he's been told that he will, in fact, be resigning in November, and that no more will be made of the matter unless he should happen to change his mind.

In other words, I think they're giving him a soft landing. It's more than what he deserves if even half the stories are true, but at least it's something.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

FEMA's performance during Katrina is on par with their performance over the years. They suck as an agency in general.

In case you have been one to advocate issuing the federal government a free pass in all of this: who is to blame for FEMA sucking? Who hired Brown?

All I'm (and, it seems, most) are saying is that the federal government isn't blameless.

[ironknee]

micael brown is a clown...his resume, his iq, his dumbstruck look, and oh yeah we are still paying his salary for being a dumb fck

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Sure he was chewing Brown out, Brown's incompetence not only cost lives but also has damaged Bush politically. I certainly see the merit in investigating the FEMA and Federal government response in general but I was just pointing out that the groundwork already seems to be being laid for Bush to escape responsibility.

See, I've been wondering about this. There have long been rumors, even (especially?) among Bush's opponents, that he's not in charge at all: that he's basically being "handled" by his advisors. If this were true, it would mean that essentially the Cabinet is running the show, with Bush as the fall guy, and if the rumors are right he isn't even aware of that. He thinks he's running things.

Again, this isn't one that I'm sure I believe. But it's tough to deny that Bush seems to have an awful lot of trust in the high levels of government to do "get the job done" when there isn't much he can do himself: so much trust, in fact, that he doesn't always behave appropriately to the situation. Consider the now-infamous story of when he was told about 9/11 while he was reading a book to children in a Florida school. Before doing anything else, he finished the book. How long that took depends on who you talk to, but everyone agrees that it was more than just a minute or two; a significant amount of time passed. Why would a President wait so long to act when his country was under attack, unless he thought the issue was being taken care of?

Think about this for a second.
"We're under attack, Mr. President, but don't worry; we've got it all under control."
"We've still got a few problems over in Iraq, George, but we're basically done from here on out. 'Mission Accomplished', you might say; we've got it all under control."
"Go ahead and take another vacation, George. We'll call you if we need you, but we've got it all under control."
"Don't worry about the hurricane; we've got it all under control."

If this theory is true, then in a manner of speaking they do have it all under control, just not in the way Bush thinks they do. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but most of them are so wildly out of touch with any kind of facts that they're ridiculous. This one isn't as easy to dismiss.

Among other things, it would also explain his sudden and uncharacteristic urge to jump into the fray himself. Now he knows he's been lied to at least once, and he wants to assume direct control and see just how much he's been lied to. No, I don't think this is a good thing. A President who has decided that he can't trust anyone -however reasonably he may have come by that conclusion- would be a disaster to make Katrina pale by comparison. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

So, if the case here is that Brown fed the President bad information regarding how bad Katrina was then shouldn't Brown be fired?

Certainly he should. As others have noted, he may be about to get fired for other reasons anyway, but if he's been feeding false information to the President then it shouldn't stop at firing. I'm pretty sure that falsifying briefings is a felony.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c

In case you have been one to advocate issuing the federal government a free pass in all of this: who is to blame for FEMA sucking? Who hired Brown?

All I'm (and, it seems, most) are saying is that the federal government isn't blameless.

It sucked before Brown.

It took them a month to get to Charleston after hurricane Hugo (the most costly hurricane of its time) in 1989.

Every time there is a disaster they call for the head of the FEMA director.

That doesn't mean I think Brown is doing a good job or anything, just that FEMA sucking is not all HIS fault.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It sucked before Brown.

It took them a month to get to Charleston after hurricane Hugo (the most costly hurricane of its time) in 1989.

Every time there is a disaster they call for the head of the FEMA director.

That doesn't mean I think Brown is doing a good job or anything, just that FEMA sucking is not all HIS fault.

Agreed... I'm just at a loss to understand why some people believe the Feds should be given a free pass this time around. If people were arguing that the State and Local governments should be given a free pass, I might have the same grievences.

As Colin Powell said, all areas of government screwed up.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Millennium

See, I've been wondering about this. There have long been rumors, even (especially?) among Bush's opponents, that he's not in charge at all: that he's basically being "handled" by his advisors. If this were true, it would mean that essentially the Cabinet is running the show, with Bush as the fall guy, and if the rumors are right he isn't even aware of that. He thinks he's running things.

Think about this for a second.
"We're under attack, Mr. President, but don't worry; we've got it all under control."
"We've still got a few problems over in Iraq, George, but we're basically done from here on out. 'Mission Accomplished', you might say; we've got it all under control."
"Go ahead and take another vacation, George. We'll call you if we need you, but we've got it all under control."
"Don't worry about the hurricane; we've got it all under control."

If this theory is true, then in a manner of speaking they do have it all under control, just not in the way Bush thinks they do. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but most of them are so wildly out of touch with any kind of facts that they're ridiculous. This one isn't as easy to dismiss.

Interesting.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Agreed... I'm just at a loss to understand why some people believe the Feds should be given a free pass this time around. If people were arguing that the State and Local governments should be given a free pass, I might have the same grievences.

I've gone through all the threads here, and I haven't found anyone who claimed the federal government is blameless. I have, however, seen countless diatribes that is was all the federal government's fault.

The initial accusations were that it was all on the federal government. Go ahead... look for yourself. It took pages and pages of numerous posts to finally explain the breakdown of local, state, and federal resposibilities. Feel free to look at all the people bitching that Bush didn't send in the National Guard. It took a while to finally educate those flame-throwers that Bush couldn't deploy them. That is a prime example of the ignorance involved here.

It's nice to see folks are now willing to accept that local and state balls were dropped as well.

As Colin Powell said, all areas of government screwed up.

But did Jay Leo say the same, because that's what really matters.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I've gone through all the threads here, and I haven't found anyone who claimed the federal government is blameless. I have, however, seen countless diatribes that is was all the federal government's fault.

The initial accusations were that it was all on the federal government. Go ahead... look for yourself. It took pages and pages of numerous posts to finally explain the breakdown of local, state, and federal resposibilities. Feel free to look at all the people bitching that Bush didn't send in the National Guard. It took a while to finally educate those flame-throwers that Bush couldn't deploy them. That is a prime example of the ignorance involved here.

It's nice to see folks are now willing to accept that local and state balls were dropped as well.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I've never said this. I don't recall seeing this, and I don't understand why anybody would claim this. I did see some people on the Right extremely defensive and quick to defend, perhaps this was being read into the posts? Regardless, it doesn't really matter.

But did Jay Leo say the same, because that's what really matters.

Jay Leno? Who watches him? Try Jon Stewart or Bill Mahr, they have far more interesting opinions.

Stewart did some funny bits:

http://www.commonbits.org/tag/daily-show

I particularly like the Fokkers and the Dick Cheney bit.

[besson3c]

Speaking of Jay Leno and the media,

I think that the media have been pussies for most of Bush's administration. They were really cut loose for this Katrina thing, but in the past they have been pretty well controlled by their corporate masters. The fact that no weapons were found in many others countries would have been a story of scandalous proportions, but the Left and the media were a little too timid in demanding accountability for all of this in fear that they would be labeled as unpatriotic.

With Katrina, there is no easy out. It is nice to finally see the media being more aggressive and not just reciting talking points. To me, the real issue is not Liberal vs. Conservative media (I think it is hard and problematic to generalize and create a dichotomy among the media this way), but it is shallow vs. deep probing media.

If this doesn't make sense, perhaps I'll come back in the morning and edit this when i'm more awake

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Millennium

See, I've been wondering about this. There have long been rumors, even (especially?) among Bush's opponents, that he's not in charge at all: that he's basically being "handled" by his advisors. If this were true, it would mean that essentially the Cabinet is running the show, with Bush as the fall guy, and if the rumors are right he isn't even aware of that. He thinks he's running things.

Again, this isn't one that I'm sure I believe. But it's tough to deny that Bush seems to have an awful lot of trust in the high levels of government to do "get the job done" when there isn't much he can do himself: so much trust, in fact, that he doesn't always behave appropriately to the situation. Consider the now-infamous story of when he was told about 9/11 while he was reading a book to children in a Florida school. Before doing anything else, he finished the book. How long that took depends on who you talk to, but everyone agrees that it was more than just a minute or two; a significant amount of time passed. Why would a President wait so long to act when his country was under attack, unless he thought the issue was being taken care of?

Think about this for a second.
"We're under attack, Mr. President, but don't worry; we've got it all under control."
"We've still got a few problems over in Iraq, George, but we're basically done from here on out. 'Mission Accomplished', you might say; we've got it all under control."
"Go ahead and take another vacation, George. We'll call you if we need you, but we've got it all under control."
"Don't worry about the hurricane; we've got it all under control."

If this theory is true, then in a manner of speaking they do have it all under control, just not in the way Bush thinks they do. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but most of them are so wildly out of touch with any kind of facts that they're ridiculous. This one isn't as easy to dismiss.

Among other things, it would also explain his sudden and uncharacteristic urge to jump into the fray himself. Now he knows he's been lied to at least once, and he wants to assume direct control and see just how much he's been lied to. No, I don't think this is a good thing. A President who has decided that he can't trust anyone -however reasonably he may have come by that conclusion- would be a disaster to make Katrina pale by comparison. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

Certainly he should. As others have noted, he may be about to get fired for other reasons anyway, but if he's been feeding false information to the President then it shouldn't stop at firing. I'm pretty sure that falsifying briefings is a felony.

Um, sticky ground here because you can easily come off looking like a nut. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories but I think there is some credence to what you say. My spin on it goes more like this:

You can't think of Bush as a singular - it's plural, Bush means the current President, the former President and the perhaps future President in Florida. I think more on the lines of dynasty. When you say Bush is being 'handled' I don't think of it in the sense of the 'Star Chamber' but more on lines that Bush I is actually having a lot more hands on control than we know of.

It's all about the power and the ability to retain it. Here's what I think is interesting though. Bush II First Term there were quite a few obvious connections to the father - Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Baker, etc. 9/11 probably screwed the agenda up but I think it also presented what they thought were opportunities - i.e. - the Iraqi invasion - but I also think it allowed Bush II to flex his own political muscle and ideology sort to speak. Powell, ever loyal to the father left in disgust and disgrace, Baker threw in the towel, I'm thinking Cheney has allied himself with the son with Rice and Rumsfeld.

Bush II's relection, the loss of some influencing characters and his father's age has probably placed Bush II at the head of the family dynasty - which must surprise the hell out of everyone at the family get togethers as Jeb was always the annointed one. And I think with GWB calling the shots, despite Rove's best efforts the wheels are slowly falling off this American royal clan - the fact that you think he relies too much on "experts" so to speak, taking care of things might add to why the second term with its 'mandate' is careening out of control - Iraq is a boondoogle thanks to the limited intelligence he was given and the poor planning that supposedly he would have ok'd, social security reform was a failure, the tax breaks for the wealthy is, particualrly now that Katrina is exposing our dirty laundry in regards to race and class, a terrible idea and the Katrina response was abysmal and a national disgrace.

The question is does Dad's team come in to try to regain some semblance of control on the dynasty or is he totally out of the picture. They won't want to take a chance on Bush III if all America remembers is that Bush II was full of incompetence.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

You can't think of Bush as a singular - it's plural, Bush means the current President, the former President and the perhaps future President in Florida. I think more on the lines of dynasty. When you say Bush is being 'handled' I don't think of it in the sense of the 'Star Chamber' but more on lines that Bush I is actually having a lot more hands on control than we know of.

I don't think that at all. I think that the two Bush Presidencies are very different animals. GHWB was very well connected in Washington, he was the son of a senator after all. He was the CIA director for a while, if I recall correctly. He gained his Presidency after being VP for eight years. He built his connections through years of public service at the Federal level and the people under him, while obviously of a certain political ideaology, were able to at least talk civilly to the other side. (Disclaimer: I was much younger back then, and although I do remember the period, I'm probably idealizing it too much).

GWB, by contrast, was only a politian for a short time, and built his connections in industry. (He was also the only MLB owner to vote against the Wild Card, but I digress...) Although he was governor of Texas, which is a huge job with a high public profile with lots of connections, I would wager that most of his political connections in Washington came through his dad. His industry and state connections were probably less made up of "diplomats", who needed to be civil to survive, and more "Entrepreneurs", who made a living from being assertive in the corporate world, and specifically not making compromises.

Since GWB was such a political "wild card" when he first took over in 2000, I think people like Colin Powell signed on in hopes that GWB was more like his dad. They left (or were forced out) because he has a much different philosophy than his dad. If GHWB was really "in control", I think things would have played out much differently.

I think every administration picks the people who fill these spots like the director of FEMA from their supporters -- there's no denying that. But because of Bush's particular connections, he is much more likely to draw upon someone outside Washington. Plus, I think that since most of his contacts are "Entrepreneurs", he is more likely to pick someone on the basis of what he thinks they are capable of, not necessarily what they have done. In the case of Michael Brown, this is very apparent. The emergency preparedness jobs on his resume were, at best, exaggerated, and at worst fabricated. The Bush administration obviously did not consider the job important enough to do a background check, or (more likely), they figured that what he did in the past did not count as much as what the President figured he is capable of doing.

Finally, before we all get on the "bash Bush" bandwagon, have you ever wondered why FEMA had such a good reputation in the past? It was partly because James Lee Witt was an efficient administrator under Clinton. But I think Clinton put a greater emphasis on FEMA because there are an awful lot of Electoral votes in Hurricane Territory, and if you can provide effective federal disaster relief (and hand out money to people to re-build their homes in flood plains regardless of whether or not they had Federal flood insurance), you can probably win more votes than if you slashed the FEMA budget and cut everyone in the country a Treasury check with the money you saved.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Bush II's relection, the loss of some influencing characters and his father's age has probably placed Bush II at the head of the family dynasty - which must surprise the hell out of everyone at the family get togethers as Jeb was always the annointed one.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

I don't think that at all. I think that the two Bush Presidencies are very different animals. GHWB was very well connected in Washington, he was the son of a senator after all. He was the CIA director for a while, if I recall correctly. He gained his Presidency after being VP for eight years. He built his connections through years of public service at the Federal level and the people under him, while obviously of a certain political ideaology, were able to at least talk civilly to the other side. (Disclaimer: I was much younger back then, and although I do remember the period, I'm probably idealizing it too much).

GWB, by contrast, was only a politian for a short time, and built his connections in industry. (He was also the only MLB owner to vote against the Wild Card, but I digress...) Although he was governor of Texas, which is a huge job with a high public profile with lots of connections, I would wager that most of his political connections in Washington came through his dad. His industry and state connections were probably less made up of "diplomats", who needed to be civil to survive, and more "Entrepreneurs", who made a living from being assertive in the corporate world, and specifically not making compromises.

Since GWB was such a political "wild card" when he first took over in 2000, I think people like Colin Powell signed on in hopes that GWB was more like his dad. They left (or were forced out) because he has a much different philosophy than his dad. If GHWB was really "in control", I think things would have played out much differently.

I think every administration picks the people who fill these spots like the director of FEMA from their supporters -- there's no denying that. But because of Bush's particular connections, he is much more likely to draw upon someone outside Washington. Plus, I think that since most of his contacts are "Entrepreneurs", he is more likely to pick someone on the basis of what he thinks they are capable of, not necessarily what they have done. In the case of Michael Brown, this is very apparent. The emergency preparedness jobs on his resume were, at best, exaggerated, and at worst fabricated. The Bush administration obviously did not consider the job important enough to do a background check, or (more likely), they figured that what he did in the past did not count as much as what the President figured he is capable of doing.

Finally, before we all get on the "bash Bush" bandwagon, have you ever wondered why FEMA had such a good reputation in the past? It was partly because James Lee Witt was an efficient administrator under Clinton. But I think Clinton put a greater emphasis on FEMA because there are an awful lot of Electoral votes in Hurricane Territory, and if you can provide effective federal disaster relief (and hand out money to people to re-build their homes in flood plains regardless of whether or not they had Federal flood insurance), you can probably win more votes than if you slashed the FEMA budget and cut everyone in the country a Treasury check with the money you saved.

Let me heave this off my chest first. Why is it one cannot be critical of the elected leader without someone else saying it is 'Bush bashing' - this is more out there in the open than directed at you personally but to me, it's not bashing to question the decision and performance of an elected official. It would be bashing if I (or anyone) made personal comments - like "Bush is an idiot". OK, rant over, on to your comments.

I don't necessarily disagree with your comments, Bush I was definetely inside the beltway whereas Bush II is outside. However, those personal differences aside its the Bush dynasty - managed in different ways but the Bush dynasty all the same. I think you just made one of my points in a better fashion. First term there seemed to be more influence if you will from the Bush I crowd, including Papa Bush. But with the elder Bush inclined to let his son run the dynasty those Bush I loyalist got a bitter taste of Bush II and decided to move on.

There's a flux and flow there. Bush II will do things his way to some extent but in order to extend the dynasty he also has to consider what ground work he is or isn't leaving for his brother. There are other dynastic families out there - the Kennedys for one (who constantly seem to shot themselves in the foot), the Gores along with the Bush's seem to be first tier and I am sure there are quite a few second tier political families out there.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The fact that no weapons were found in many others countries would have been a story of scandalous proportions, but the Left and the media were a little too timid in demanding accountability for all of this in fear that they would be labeled as unpatriotic.

Perhaps the media realized that the war was about more than ready-to-fire weapons. Maybe the media realized the significance of buried and hidden centrifuges. Maybe the import of Iraqi funds and nuclear scientists to Libya, or the missiles on order from North Korea, also rang some bells.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Perhaps the media realized that the war was about more than ready-to-fire weapons. Maybe the media realized the significance of buried and hidden centrifuges. Maybe the import of Iraqi funds and nuclear scientists to Libya, or the missiles on order from North Korea, also rang some bells.

If so, why aren't they reporting this? In a sort of backwards way, it proves my point that they are too timid.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If so, why aren't they reporting this? In a sort of backwards way, it proves my point that they are too timid.

It was reported... As for the coverage, if it's widespread, then the "no weapons" platitude becomes moot.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...centrifuge/%20

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3026-1690r.htm

[spacefreak]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050912/.../katrina_brown

Federal Emergency Management Agency director Mike Brown said Monday he has resigned "in the best interest of the agency and best interest of the president," three days after losing his onsite command of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

"The focus has got to be on FEMA, what the people are trying to do down there," Brown told The Associated Press.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It was reported... As for the coverage, if it's widespread, then the "no weapons" platitude becomes moot.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...centrifuge/%20

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3026-1690r.htm

These articles about a centrifuge found which provides evidence that someday (perhaps as a last resort) Iraq may had wanted to restart its nuclear ambitions, and how Iraq had on order missles from Korea which were blocked.

So, Sadaam perhaps *wanted* to use these weapons, some day, but you need more than desire to be a threat - you need to have the means. It takes years to develop nuclear weapons, it would have been hard, if not impossible, to do so while not being noticed. As for the missles, they were obviously blocked, which proves that we were able to keep him reasonable contained and at arm's length.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

... which proves that we were able to keep him reasonable contained and at arm's length.

First of all, a centrifuge is the holy grail of a nuke program. Combined with the 2.8 metric tons of yellowcake they had on hand... 6 months tops. And that was the plan, according to the scientist who had the buried equipment.

I realize that you prefer that the man remained in power, but containment is never complete. The missile orders and buried centrifuge parts are an example of that. Oil-for-food scandal cash is another. And let's not forget about the regular firings at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, which as far as I'm concerned was plenty enough reason to wipe out Saddam's regime.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

First of all, a centrifuge is the holy grail of a nuke program. Combined with the 2.8 metric tons of yellowcake they had on hand... 6 months tops. And that was the plan, according to the scientist who had the buried equipment.

I realize that you prefer that the man remained in power, but containment is never complete. The missile orders and buried centrifuge parts are an example of that. Oil-for-food scandal cash is another. And let's not forget about the regular firings at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, which as far as I'm concerned was plenty enough reason to wipe out Saddam's regime.

Okay,

You make good points, and I'm quite honestly ambivalent about whether we should have invaded (my grievances have more to do with the process, but no need to get into this again). I can accept what you are saying.

However, how would you feel about invading North Korea, or any other country? Where does it end? When is it a last resort? This is where I'm most conflicted, but again, no need to get into this again either.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Okay,

You make good points, and I'm quite honestly ambivalent about whether we should have invaded (my grievances have more to do with the process, but no need to get into this again). I can accept what you are saying.

However, how would you feel about invading North Korea, or any other country? Where does it end? When is it a last resort? This is where I'm most conflicted, but again, no need to get into this again either.

And you wonder why I sound like a broken record?

North Korea has HOW much oil?

Do you 'forget' as a social tactic? Do you have a short term memory issue and forget everything every day and have to learn it all over again, like Guy Pearce in the film, Memento?

A man, suffering from short-term memory loss, uses notes and tattoos to hunt down his wife's killer.

You seem like a tattoo kind of guy. Maybe it would help ya.



But, then again maybe we should take over every country. Then maybe the world will be peaceful.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by smacintush

The media is playing this as if he's being "relieved" of something. He's just going back to Washington to direct FEMA. Did you expect the director of the entire dept. to personally take care of Katrina?

There is more for FEMA to do than to just deal with Katrina. This IS still hurricane season.

What flavor of kool-aid are you drinking?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And you wonder why I sound like a broken record?

I'm crackin' up. Powell not in Bush's camp. Was that before or after he gave the long speech to the UN about WMDs and the other threats posed by Saddam. I wonder why Clinton had also warned about the dangers of Saddam. Everyone wants to believe that Bush was duped somehow into invading Iraq. Iraq was found to be engaging an arms race with Iran. = very bad. Has a wealth of oil resources and not willing to work well with the US, but had no problem working behind the scenes with our "allies" in the oil-for-food-scandal. = very bad. N. Korea is not a center of influence geographically like Iraq was. We thought that by changing Iraq, we could change the face of the Middle East. Whether or not we've simply created a Super-Iran is yet to be seen. The entire International Community believed Saddam was a threat. They decided to draft yet another resolution threatening "severe consequences". To some, that meant more sanctions which only served to starve the Iraqi civilians while Saddam built another palace. We decided to give the UN resolutions merit and carried through with the severe consequences. Some disagree and that's fine, but remember it wasn't this administration alone. Most of the civilized world realized what was going on in Iraq, they disagreed on how to handle the threat. Some even showed their true intentions by aligning with this man to line their own pockets. I don't agree with everything Bush has done, notably our border situation which is going to cost us dearly, if not yet this year, but to even come close to indicting him for Katrina is simply partisan. i.e. "Bush bashing".

It's political, partisan, and painfully obvious from "he hates black people" on down. If one claims not to have seen this nonsense, they're lying to themselves.

North Korea has HOW much oil?

It's more than that though. We invade N. Korea and we piss off China. We invade Iraq and we piss off Besson3c, a few Europeans whose eyes move to and fro disliking this administration in general, and some terrorists. I'd rather piss off besson, a few euros, and some terrorists.

Do you 'forget' as a social tactic? Do you have a short term memory issue and forget everything every day and have to learn it all over again, like Guy Pearce in the film, Memento?

I've not seen hatred for one man elevate to such levels. This type of hatred has no memory at all up to and including citing Bush's move on Social Security. When Clinton claims there's a social security crisis, it makes sense. He did so no less than 5 times in speeches I've cited in threads prior. When Bush claims there's a social security crisis, he's trying to line the pockets of the rich. It just gets old. It becomes difficult to sift good arguments from simple partisan vitriol. Hatred only knows what it can at the time, hatred. Hatred needs no explanation. It latches on to black helicopter theories, suppositions, and speculations because in the end, it has no foundation for it's existence. It only knows it needs to continue propogating itself.

How do I know when it's become political and partisan? When I see statements like these;
"Whatever, the point remains, the Republicans are at least partially to blame."

Why and how I ask myself, is this even remotely relevant to the humanitarian concern we have on our hands? Notice how I used the word "we". The fact of the matter is if you had removed all of the people from New Orleans within the 72 hours prior to the storm, the absolute most important time for any disaster preparation, there would be only property damage. Humans involved makes it a humanitarian problem. This was the sole responsibility of the local government, not Federal. It cannot be stretched or ignored, it's been discussed time and again. I don't care if the local government was Democrat, Republican, Alien abductees (which would no doubt also be Bush's fault), the fact of the matter is this process failed at the local level first, the Federal level second yet I continue to hear about how it failed at the Federal level. I hear only about New Orleans when there are almost as many dead in Mississippi. It wreaks of partisanship and it's officially tired, old, and painfully obvious to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And you wonder why I sound like a broken record?

North Korea has HOW much oil?

Do you 'forget' as a social tactic? Do you have a short term memory issue and forget everything every day and have to learn it all over again, like Guy Pearce in the film, Memento?



You seem like a tattoo kind of guy. Maybe it would help ya.



But, then again maybe we should take over every country. Then maybe the world will be peaceful.

Maybe I wanted to hear some different answers for a change... Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps not everybody agrees with you?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

However, how would you feel about invading North Korea, or any other country? Where does it end? When is it a last resort? This is where I'm most conflicted, but again, no need to get into this again either.

North Korea already has nukes, so that's a different beast altogether. We're not looking to fight anyone, but when scoundrels start screwing with us and the world, all options must remain on the table.

I think a policy determinant that often goes unnoticed (or unmentioned) involves who is next in line to assume power. Perhaps the successors to the throne in N. Korea are a little less extreme and more open to reform that Kim Jong Il. In the case of Iraq, Uday and Qusay were as brutal (if not more) as their father, and skumbag, brutal, theiving rule and behavior would likely have continued for many more decades. The entire regime was rotten.

I also think this is why Cuba gets the cold shoulder from the US. I think we're just waiting for Castro to die so that we can deal with someone else and take it from there. And I'd be willing to bet that we've gotten word from potential successors that more openness towards the US is on the horizon once Fidel croaks. Those folks want economic prosperity just like we do, and they are undoubtedly tired of living in squalor just because their stubborn leader refuses to accept that oppressive, communist societies are a thing of the past.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Those folks want economic prosperity just like we do, and they are undoubtedly tired of living in squalor just because their stubborn leader refuses to accept that oppressive, communist societies are a thing of the past.

Well said, but don't you mean that oppressive, *dictatorships* are a thing of the past?

I'm not sure how a democracy would work, or if it could work in a country like China. Granted, I realize that several aspects of China's communist government have become corrupt, I just think it would take a lot of resources to manage (not to mention convert) to democracy in a country as overpopulated as China.