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: (I hope that in the coming days and weeks, those unnamed sources tell their stories to the various investigative entities.) 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. [/font] 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.