Could Bush Have Done More

[less0305]

Dara I still maintain it is only with the acquired hindsight we have learned that in the future we may need to implement changes. So we take what we have learned and apply in the future. The answer to the question is yes, Bush could have done more, now that we know what blunders were made beneath him. But it was the lack of foresight and planning by the city and state that is the crux of the matter. What Bush did was in accordance with protocol. Maybe protocol should be changed, but we only have that knowledge with hindsight.
So now there needs to be PLan "B": in the event the City/State miserably fails it citizens, the President should __________ after this much time__________. IT will take experts to determine what the ramifications of the Presdient acting any faster and what's in order.
So, IMO, discussion about what the President didn't do, based on what he didn;t know, but does know now is a limited topic.JMHO of course.

The critical movement to overstep the Governor's authority without him/her agreeing to it, in my opinion, will be fought tooth and nail in any and all situations - terrorist attacks, natural disasters, civil unrest.... At the time this begins, we may as well start getting ready for a new kind of government here in the good 'ole USA. HAD Bush overstepped the Governor's authority this time, then when and what would be the next time, and then the time after that? It would snowball and the President would be usurping the Governors powers left and right after that. And then why have state governments at all? Just like snow was not a natural disaster declared by the President in this entire USA history.....until President Clinton came along. And then all of a sudden snow is a natural disaster and federal money is given out for snow. President Clinton wanted to make airplane crashes a natural disaster. So, in my opinion, Governors will resist and resist strongly to the President taking their power away and becoming the person in charge. If people want to say Bush is playing politics by not taking over for the Governor, then maybe so. But in several congressional hearings over DRILLS - not actual events even - Drills, the loudest thing said was that the Governor should remain in charge at all times. It was said and said repeatedly and said that the Governor should resist at all lengths....that it had to remain with the state.

It all will boil down to a political game. And this hasn't even been broached yet....but if a Republican President had taken away the authority of a Democratic Governor without their agreeing - and a FEMALE Governor at that...The reactions we're seeing from the Democrats now would be nothing compared to the reactions we would see had he taken the reins from her immediately - without delay. All this is strictly how I think, by the way.

So, in essence, JBean, we're on the same wavelength, but I don't think plans for the President to be able to usurp the authority of the Governor will get very far.... Well, maybe they will, when a Democrat is elected and we have a democrat majority in the senate and house...then maybe they'll do it to a Republican Governor.

 

[Dara]

So, in essence, JBean, we're on the same wavelength, but I don't think plans for the President to be able to usurp the authority of the Governor will get very far.... Well, maybe they will, when a Democrat is elected and we have a democrat majority in the senate and house...then maybe they'll do it to a Republican Governor.

Well, that's quite a partisan response.

If legally Bush had the right to "usurp the power" of the governor, and the governor is the reason so many people were waiting for aid and people were being shot at and raped, and the president has the authority and resources to stop it by sending in troops, why would he not? And what better time than when people were dying?

 

[less0305]

Well, that's quite a partisan response.

If legally Bush had the right to "usurp the power" of the governor, and the governor is the reason so many people were waiting for aid and people were being shot at and raped, and the president has the authority and resources to stop it by sending in troops, why would he not? And what better time than when people were dying?

See above post. That's exactly what I explained.

 

[JBean]

I understand that is how you feel. We disagree.

agreed!
Probably I am frustrated by this conversation because I think my time is probably better spent finding out what is happening at my local levels to make sure I'm not overly dependent on FEMA or the President. I want to make sure I am LESS depoendent on the President not MORE dependent on him by giving him more power?
Because that is the reality of it,IMO. I want to make sure I am voting for the right state and local officals and getting involved. I have already found links to volunteer in my city in a disaster. I want to know! because that is what will make the difference IMO..not the President. I think this is also why the conversation keeps going off topic. but with that being said, I 100% respect what you are trying to accomplish and I don't mean to be a detour and for that I apologize.:blushing: If I have undermined your conversation,it was not my intent.

 

[tybee204]

I think it will be interesting to learn if the Administration used relief as a powerplay. In other words was Federal Relief held back in an attempt to force the Govenor of Louisiana to surrender control of New Orleans?

Im still baffled why it took from Sunday 8/28 untill Thursday 9/01 for Washington to process approval for out of State National Guard to assist New Orleans.

 

[Ntegrity]

See above post. That's exactly what I explained.

STAY ON TOPIC, LESS. If you can't say something bad about the president, keep your dang fingers off the keyboard!!! :blowkiss:

 

[kgeaux]

I've been researching it for days, but am still not clear. If you can shed some light, please do. That is why I started this thread.

I understand (roughly) that the president can't federalize in a national disaster, but in a time of civil unrest, he can. I assume that's why it appears plans were made for him to federalize the troops (see the cite in my initial post).

I think you just hit the nail on the head, if you are looking for a reason the federal government delayed. It may help to understand that during the civil unrest in California, to the best I can determine, the California government ASKED for the federalization....so there are two big differences here: civil disorder vs. natural disaster, cooperation from state authorities vs. refusal to cooperate.



From the Newsweek article: For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

This one sentence is why I have interpreted the Newsweek article differently from you all along. Although the Newsweek reporter believes that Bush could have federalized the troops in an instant, his own advisors were not so sure that this situation fit the criteria.


From another link in your first post on this thread:
There is reason to believe that President Bush, running out of patience with Blanco by Saturday morning, used the only option that remained to him. It is being reported that Bush went around Blanco and utilized the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard and send in active military troops to take over the rescue and put down the lawlessness that had taken over New Orleans. The forces that Bush had poised to move into the city, swung into action. It was no accident that the major, organized rescues began when the sun came up Saturday morning. At 6:30 AM, when the sky over New Orleans was suddenly filled with military helicopters and military convoys poured into the streets, they were there because of President Bush, not Governor Blanco.

Word around town is that he "slapped her down." Not talking physically here, just that he forced the issue. Whether he did that by going around her or finally convinced her to agree, I don't know. I'm hearing forced. But that's just talking to friends, family and neighbors. No reporters here have put things like that into print, so I don't have a source. I'd love to see this confirmed or denied.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Blanco is the most responsible. Even if the mayor's plan was no good, she is the one who could force changes by withholding approval. She did no such thing. No governor before her has ever stood in the way of federal help, red cross help, and believe me, being on the gulf coast, we have experienced many, many hurricanes. She's the first to "f" it up so badly.

 

[Dara]

See above post. That's exactly what I explained.

I see you saying it will be debated in the future and that if Bush had done it, Dems would be screaming (pardon the paraphrse; apologies if I haven't caught the essence). And that in drills they said the governor should remain in charge. But in those drills, did they have a governor who was doing as Blanco did and were the cirrcumstances the same? Can't Bush deviate from a drill when people are dying in order to save lives?

If his decision was politically motivated, and people died because of it when he could have saved them, it's akin to murder. imo.

I posted this above:

The Pentagon also authorized Adm. Timothy Keating, head of the Northern Command, to lay plans for possibly deploying active-duty troops — a move that can be ordered only by the president under the rarely used Insurrection Act.

It seems like they were prepared to use them, and thus use the Insurrection Act, so what happened? Did things not get bad enough?

 

[less0305]

STAY ON TOPIC, LESS. If you can't say something bad about the president, keep your dang fingers off the keyboard!!! :blowkiss:

LOL!!! Heck, I don't care. I can state my thoughts just as much as the next person. :croc:

 

[tybee204]

Ntegrity

There is also a thread about the Conflict between the Govenor and Mayor and the possible mistakes they have made and continue to make.

People questioning the role of the President in this crisis is acceptable. Just as questioning the failures all others in a position of Leadership.

Im not interested in discussing Bush's politics before this , who loved him who hated him. My interest is in what failed in the system , who failed and taking responsibility and making changes. Not finger pointing or passing the buck.

 

[Dara]

I think you just hit the nail on the head, if you are looking for a reason the federal government delayed. It may help to understand that during the civil unrest in California, to the best I can determine, the California government ASKED for the federalization....so there are two big differences here: civil disorder vs. natural disaster, cooperation from state authorities vs. refusal to cooperate.



From the Newsweek article: For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

This one sentence is why I have interpreted the Newsweek article differently from you all along. Although the Newsweek reporter believes that Bush could have federalized the troops in an instant, his own advisors were not so sure that this situation fit the criteria.

The situation fitting the criteria is if it is a matter in which the president can invoke the Insurrection Act, wouldn't it be? Such as if it fits the definition of whether or not he CAN invoke it. In which case, who's in charge doesn't matter. He can federalize.

The legal niceties paragraph :

Up to now, the Bush administration has not hesitated to sweep aside the opinions of lawyers on such matters as prisoners' rights. But after Katrina, a strange paralysis set in. For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. Beginning early in the week, Justice Department lawyers presented arguments for federalizing the Guard, but Defense Department lawyers fretted about untrained 19-year-olds trying to enforce local laws, according to a senior law-enforcement official who requested anonymity citing the delicate nature of the discussions.

Ok, when they call it "legal niceties," I wonder if that was in matters regarding the nuts and bolts on the ground. Like should FEMA be making this call, or Blanco. It's not clear from the context if the author is simply explaining the climate into which the Insurrection Act debate was introduced. "Legal niceties" doesn't sound to me like the author is talking about the Insurrection there, but telling us what was going on in a broader sense but then narrowing down to the question of the Insurrection Act. Was there ever a question of using the Insurrection Act wrt prisoners' right? If so, it sounds like Bush did what he wanted. Either way, it sounds like Bush did what he wanted.

The part I bolded suggests it wasn't the question of if Bush could act, but should he? They were worried the Guard was going to go in and be unprepared. I wonder if that's part of the delay in Blanco getting the National Guard approval from Washington. The one she asked for Sunday, and got Thursday, if you believe that report.

 

[Dara]

I think it will be interesting to learn if the Administration used relief as a powerplay. In other words was Federal Relief held back in an attempt to force the Govenor of Louisiana to surrender control of New Orleans?

Im still baffled why it took from Sunday 8/28 untill Thursday 9/01 for Washington to process approval for out of State National Guard to assist New Orleans.

Tybee, I just made a possible connection I never saw before. Could this be part of the problem? Inkow that's in regard to federalizing the guard, but I wonder if somehow it's connected.

Beginning early in the week, Justice Department lawyers presented arguments for federalizing the Guard, but Defense Department lawyers fretted about untrained 19-year-olds trying to enforce local laws, according to a senior law-enforcement official who requested anonymity citing the delicate nature of the discussions.

And thank you for your other post.

 

[kgeaux]

snipping here Was he, as some posters suggested, thinking politically, unwilling to destroy his and /or Blanco's career?

I just want the truth.

I forgot to respond to this in my first post, sorry to make repeated responses.

Our nation is so polarized politically right now. I really do think that if he had wrested control from a Democratic governor, something that apparently has never been done before, all hell would have broken loose. I think it would have caused furthur polarization and furthur divided this nation.

I do think that any politician will take pains to not destroy his own career, if they have even half a brain. I at first thought he was not grabbing control because he didn't want Kathleen Blanco to look bad, but I don't think anymore that he was "protecting" her.

I think many of your links (good links bytheway) show that his administration took this wresting of control without her approval very seriously and tried for days to determine how they could legally do it, to the extent that he was willing to try to use the Insurrection Act.

 

[less0305]

But in those drills, did they have a governor who was doing as Blanco did and were the cirrcumstances the same? Can't Bush deviate from a drill when people are dying in order to save lives?

Duh, why do you think they had a congressional hearing??!! The drill President took over for the incompetent Governor who was letting people die because the Governor didn't have the wherewithall to respond to a bio-terrorism strike and didn't get the vaccines to people or have the emergency response people vaccinated before going in to respond to the disaster and on and on and on. And in sworn testimony Adjutant Generals (report to the Governors) testified that even tho the person playing the part of the President stepped in - it should never happen. They said, "The Governor should always remain in control," and went on to say that even in times of destruction the people of a state are more familiar with their Governor and their state officials and they were better equipped to comfort. I've posted sworn testimony quotes several times. I'm not doing it again. So no, it wasn't a hurricane. But the scenario resulted in mass death.

 

[Dara]

I forgot to respond to this in my first post, sorry to make repeated responses.

Our nation is so polarized politically right now. I really do think that if he had wrested control from a Democratic governor, something that apparently has never been done before, all hell would have broken loose. I think it would have caused furthur polarization and furthur divided this nation.

I do think that any politician will take pains to not destroy his own career, if they have even half a brain. I at first thought he was not grabbing control because he didn't want Kathleen Blanco to look bad, but I don't think anymore that he was "protecting" her.

I think many of your links (good links bytheway) show that his administration took this wresting of control without her approval very seriously and tried for days to determine how they could legally do it, to the extent that he was willing to try to use the Insurrection Act.

Good points. I am horrified that politics could be a factor, even as I realize it may have been. But can we accept that, if true, without outrage?

Seriously. Think about the people huddling and dying in the convention center, the adults and children who were raped, and doctors and nurses ducking bullets trying to get babies onto a helicopter while politicians were worrying about political fallout. And the president possibly could have had troops on the ground at that very moment.

I may be accused of hyperbole, but the sad fact is, that is exactly what was going on except I can't come near capturing the horror.

I don't know if they wrangled for days trying to use the Act legally. I don't know if they dragged their feet, hoping someone else would emerge as leader and save Bush the fallout. I don't know if they knew all along they could use it and Bush made poor decisions, on his own or because of bad info. I don't know if he knew he could have used it all along and didn't want to worsen his ratings.

But I sure want to know, and the more I study this, the better an idea I can have of which version is true.

 

[Dara]

Duh, why do you think they had a congressional hearing??!! The drill President took over for the incompetent Governor who was letting people die because the Governor didn't have the wherewithall to respond to a bio-terrorism strike and didn't get the vaccines to people or have the emergency response people vaccinated before going in to respond to the disaster and on and on and on. And in sworn testimony Adjutant Generals (report to the Governors) testified that even tho the person playing the part of the President stepped in - it should never happen. They said, "The Governor should always remain in control," and went on to say that even in times of destruction the people of a state are more familiar with their Governor and their state officials and they were better equipped to comfort. I've posted sworn testimony quotes several times. I'm not doing it again. So no, it wasn't a hurricane. But the scenario resulted in mass death.

Duh? Awwww, someone needs a huuuuug.

And it ain't me. LOL.

Annnnyway. Did that congressional hearing result in the revokation of the Insurrection Act?

If not, Bush, it appears, still could have federalize the troops, restored order and saved lives.

 

[kgeaux]

Ohhhhhkay. I guess that's all anyone wants to talk about, and are doing so in many other threads. But there's this other guy. Texas accent. Flies in a big airplane called Air Force One. Can we just maybe talk about him for a second in a thread about him? I'd hate to see him get so little attention in his own thread.

The situation was what it was. Once it was apparent how bad it was, how about Bush? We're talking about everyone else. What about him?

Since you went into detail about everyone else, did you maybe want to expand your concession that Bush probably could have done more and quicker, since in the next federal emergency, you probably won't get Nagin and Blanco but will get him and FEMA and HS?

I'm not understanding how anyone can decide what Bush should have done without knowing what other levels of government should have done. He is not, IMO, responsible for their screwups. I'm not saying he is not to be found fault with, just that without discussing the totality, how can we ever parse it?

 

[Pepper]

I think it is way too easy to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong in this country. But first everyone needs to understand how our government works.

U.S. Constitution, Article IV:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
In a broad definition a republic is a state or country in which sovereignty is invested in the people. Most commonly such principle beyond the control of the state's citizens is a hereditary principle, and in this sense a republic is the opposite of a monarchy. Thus the term republicanism is often used to describe any movement that is opposed to monarchies.
Republic can also refer to a political system that has a system of law (as in a constitution or bill of rights) that protects individual liberty from the forces of democracy with elected representatives governing according to such law. Republicanism refers to both the advocacy for this form of government and the ideology of this movement.

Please note that the definition of republic or repubicanism is spelled with a small "r" and not to be confused with the Republican Party.

Because our system of government is designed to protect state's rights, there are limitations as to what the federal government can do without the states giving their consent. And in most instances each state has a similar provisions involving counties and cities.

My point is that the federal solution is not as simple as it may appear. Until an investigation takes place (hopefully by an independent non-political body) we will not know the full story. I think we are all frustrated that the entire situation wasn't handled more competently.

As JBean says, it should make us all more aware of our local elected officials, and just how prepared our own communitities need to be in the event of a disaster.

 

[Dara]

I'm not understanding how anyone can decide what Bush should have done without knowing what other levels of government should have done. He is not, IMO, responsible for their screwups. I'm not saying he is not to be found fault with, just that without discussing the totality, how can we ever parse it?

I think there are factors that matter, and I'm discussing them, but I don't thinking things like that the "refugees" should have helped themselves and every decision that led up to the people being in the shelters have relevance in the issue of what powers Bush had.

To get the clearest picture, we need to know more. We need to know more about why the mayor and governor did what they did, too. But we're still discussing that, to the best of our ability. If you think it's too early to be having this discussion, but feel more comfortable chiming in as more information emerges, this thread will probably be still be here in a week or so. We can bump it and talk then. I'm going to keep hunting up info and adding it.

 

[less0305]

Duh? Awwww, someone needs a huuuuug.

And it ain't me. LOL.

Annnnyway. Did that congressional hearing result in the revokation of the Insurrection Act?

If not, Bush, it appears, still could have federalize the troops, restored order and saved lives.

Well, Dara, I guess there is absolutely nothing left to say except I hope I never live in the Country you propose. I hope I'm dead and gone before that precedence is set and then repeated over and over and over again. People ask for things...demand things....and then find out it might not have been such a good thing to ask for. That old saying, "Careful what you wish for." Much of this Monday morning quarterbacking - and I won't say all because we are talking about a catastrophic natural disaster - wouldn't be what it is if the Governor had something along the lines of, "Mr. President, got a situation going on down here I need some help with," versus, "Mr. President, I want all the federal money you can round up, load up, beg for, but keep your azzz in Washington D.C. and your cotton-picking mitts off my state. I'm quite capable of handling it myself."