Could Bush Have Done More

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Dara, Sep 8, 2005.

  1. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 couldn’t 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? That’s just one issue. Could he have not gutted FEMA and then left it in charge of disasters? We’re 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 that’s why it got ugly. Maybe keeping it all in once place will let us have the actual, focused, civil discussion we’re 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 we’re discussing it extensively), we should want to know it about him. If we don’t, why don’t we? But I’m going to start with one of the key questions. Could Bush have gone over the governor’s 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? We’ve 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 wouldn’t turn over control, but can’t Bush take it? This all seems to suggest he could and chose not to. If she did the abysmal job she’s being blamed for, why wouldn’t 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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because that's what we expect. We expect the best he could do, and if that wasn't done, it's a problem. He couldn't fix everything but what didn't he do that he could have? If Bush could have federalized the guard and chose not to, or chose not to until Saturday, aren't you concerned?

    Do you not care if his policies and procedures and decisions made this worse?
     
  5. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I clearly have different expectations than you. I expect my locality to have my backside and the feds to have their backside within a reasonable amount of time. I'm not counting on FEMA as my first respnder. It's just common sense.
    Bush's decision's on federal intervention are based on imformation he gets from the Governor. garbage in garbage out.
     
  6. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Clearly. Obviously.

    And you clearly don't understand my post if you refer to "first responder."

    So, he was as uninformed as Chertoff and Brown. These guys are the holy trinity of oblivion! The rest of us knew how dire the situation was. And he possibly had the power to take steps that could have save lives. If he didn't do so, it's because he didn't know what was going on? That's reassuring.
     
  7. less0305

    less0305 The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m

    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I sure hope my President, Governor OR Mayor isn't sitting around making decisions on what WE see on Fox, MSNBC, and et al. If they're sitting before the TV watching Geraldo and getting their intelligence there - we're all doomed.
     
  8. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I sure hope my president knows the situation and doesn't need TV. But it appears we are doomed, because his chosen leaders didn't know what was widely reported. And I guess according to some of you, neither did Bush.

    People were dying. People were being raped. Rescue efforts were halted because of snipers. Did the president know that? If he did and he saw that the situation wasn't improving, he couldn't figure out more help was needed? He is really that passive?

    Oh, and if you don't want those in charge relying on the media, you must have a problem with Chertoff using imaginary headlines to justify decisions.
     
  9. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry if I misunderstood you.
    We have hindsight now Dara. It's easy to say what the President should have done because we know the outcome. WE now know that the city/ste blew it. Big time.
    Armed with that information, I agree with you, the President should have done more to overpower the inept leaders the voters in LA put in office.

    If you exepct the Presdient to act on News reports?! That is positively frightening.
     
  10. Larkit

    Larkit Former Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have any of you ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?

    Do you understand what 'First Responder' means?
     
  11. DEPUTYDAWG

    DEPUTYDAWG Active Member

    Messages:
    10,844
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yep, been there, done that in a wildfire evacuation.
     
  12. less0305

    less0305 The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m

    Messages:
    4,250
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I knew I shouldn't have come to this thread!!!! :banghead:
     
  13. Larkit

    Larkit Former Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Such as what?
     
  14. Larkit

    Larkit Former Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good. You're one, at least.

    How about Posse Comitatus? Ever read the Act?
     
  15. Larkit

    Larkit Former Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dara, do you know what the Posse Comitatus Act says? Do you understand what federalizing troops and operation means, in terms of the constitution?
     
  16. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Larkit

    Larkit Former Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about the refugess themselves? Could they have done anything to help themselves?
     
  18. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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).
     
  19. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's up to you whether or not to participate, but I am trying to discuss this HUGE issue. I know some simply want to blame the mayor and governor, and we should certainly look at them hard and hold them accountable. But not to the exclusion of the federal government.

    Why is there such resistance to questioning Bush when there is no such resistance to talking about the state and local level?
     
  20. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Probably not by the time they were being raped and shot at.

    At which point if the president had the power to stop the violence, why didn't he?
     
  21. Dara

    Dara Loving every rise and fall

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And, you know, this question is ongoing. Who is in charge now? Why don't we know? Why are we hearing stories of aid still not getting through, along with the stories of big successes? Brown, widely criticized, still has the president's praise and approval. He and Chertoff are both taking a lot of heat but are they still running things?

    I think that's a very good reason to be discussing the president's response.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice