Could Bush have done more?
We know, I believe that there were failures at all three levels of government. Well, the highest elected official is the president. I read over and over that he couldnt have stepped in and done more, about how hamstrung he was by the governor. How he deferred to her regarding federal aid. But is that true? Could he have done more?
I think there are many ways he could have done more. Could he have appointed a more qualified FEMA head, one who might have been the first to know about people dying in the convention center, not the last? Thats just one issue. Could he have not gutted FEMA and then left it in charge of disasters? Were still hearing about major glitches in rescue efforts. Today. So, is he coordinating this? Is Brown? Chertoff? Blanco? What role is Bush playing, besides photo ops and platitudes? I definitely want to discuss all of that. This discussion started in the angry thread and maybe thats why it got ugly. Maybe keeping it all in once place will let us have the actual, focused, civil discussion were capable of. But this is something we should want to know. What can and can Bush do? What did he do wrong? If we want to know that about Blanco and Nagin (and we apparently do, because were discussing it extensively), we should want to know it about him. If we dont, why dont we? But Im going to start with one of the key questions. Could Bush have gone over the governors head and federalize the National Guard?
When there is civil unrest, as in the LA riots, the president apparently can federalize the troops. So how is the shooting in the streets, rapes and roving gangs in the Convention Center not civil unrest? Weve seen that a natural disaster has different rules, but what about when the natural disaster brings about the civil unrest? Can he use the Insurrection Act then? Newsweek thinks so:
That seems to suggest Bush could have but chose not to federalize the Guard. So does this:
This suggests that Bush at least considered using the Insurrection Act:
If plans were made to deploy active-duty troops, and that could be done only under the Insurrection Act, doesn't that mean the Insurrection Act could have been used?
The article is date September 1.
I understand that the governor wouldnt turn over control, but cant Bush take it? This all seems to suggest he could and chose not to. If she did the abysmal job shes being blamed for, why wouldnt he? The worst she did, the more it seems Bush would have been obligated to take over. How could he not, if he could?
Barbara Stock, "a regular contributor to AmericanDaily, ReNewAmerica, Bushcountry, RepublicanDailyNews, The Judson Cox Newsletter, and Prudent Politics," says he reportedly did] use it.
Now, realize that's a conservative talking, so take it with the same grain of salt you'd use for a liberal. I also reserve judgment because there is no named source. But since it's a GOP reporter, I thought if I gave a disclaimer, some of you would prefer to read the information and judge it for yourself.
If true, if he had this as an option, even his only option, why did he wait so long? Did he have to? Was he, as some posters suggested, thinking politically, unwilling to destroy his and /or Blanco's career?
I just want the truth.
We know, I believe that there were failures at all three levels of government. Well, the highest elected official is the president. I read over and over that he couldnt have stepped in and done more, about how hamstrung he was by the governor. How he deferred to her regarding federal aid. But is that true? Could he have done more?
I think there are many ways he could have done more. Could he have appointed a more qualified FEMA head, one who might have been the first to know about people dying in the convention center, not the last? Thats just one issue. Could he have not gutted FEMA and then left it in charge of disasters? Were still hearing about major glitches in rescue efforts. Today. So, is he coordinating this? Is Brown? Chertoff? Blanco? What role is Bush playing, besides photo ops and platitudes? I definitely want to discuss all of that. This discussion started in the angry thread and maybe thats why it got ugly. Maybe keeping it all in once place will let us have the actual, focused, civil discussion were capable of. But this is something we should want to know. What can and can Bush do? What did he do wrong? If we want to know that about Blanco and Nagin (and we apparently do, because were discussing it extensively), we should want to know it about him. If we dont, why dont we? But Im going to start with one of the key questions. Could Bush have gone over the governors head and federalize the National Guard?
When there is civil unrest, as in the LA riots, the president apparently can federalize the troops. So how is the shooting in the streets, rapes and roving gangs in the Convention Center not civil unrest? Weve seen that a natural disaster has different rules, but what about when the natural disaster brings about the civil unrest? Can he use the Insurrection Act then? Newsweek thinks so:
Washington, too, was slow to react to the crisis. The Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was reluctant for the military to take a lead role in disaster relief, a job traditionally performed by FEMA and by the National Guard, which is commanded by state governors. President Bush could have "federalized" the National Guard in an instant.
(I hope that in the coming days and weeks, those unnamed sources tell their stories to the various investigative entities.)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.
That seems to suggest Bush could have but chose not to federalize the Guard. So does this:
A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.
This suggests that Bush at least considered using the Insurrection Act:
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.
If plans were made to deploy active-duty troops, and that could be done only under the Insurrection Act, doesn't that mean the Insurrection Act could have been used?
The article is date September 1.
I understand that the governor wouldnt turn over control, but cant Bush take it? This all seems to suggest he could and chose not to. If she did the abysmal job shes being blamed for, why wouldnt he? The worst she did, the more it seems Bush would have been obligated to take over. How could he not, if he could?
Barbara Stock, "a regular contributor to AmericanDaily, ReNewAmerica, Bushcountry, RepublicanDailyNews, The Judson Cox Newsletter, and Prudent Politics," says he reportedly did] use it.
[/font][font=arial,helvetica] 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.
Now, realize that's a conservative talking, so take it with the same grain of salt you'd use for a liberal. I also reserve judgment because there is no named source. But since it's a GOP reporter, I thought if I gave a disclaimer, some of you would prefer to read the information and judge it for yourself.
If true, if he had this as an option, even his only option, why did he wait so long? Did he have to? Was he, as some posters suggested, thinking politically, unwilling to destroy his and /or Blanco's career?
I just want the truth.