Could Bush Have Done More

Dara said:
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?
And some just want to blame it on the President.
I don't think he can take control over the Governor nor should he. She had aides, who obviously were as clueless as she was.
Perhaps an Amendment to the Constitution giving the Senators the right to take over and ask the President for help.
But, if it was written that the President could take control if the Governor wasn't doing what was needed, the Dems would scream that he was trying to take over individual states.

In the eyes of many Dems, there is nothing the President can do right. It gets a bit tiring.

I see a lot of resistance from some talking about how the State and local government failed. They just want to gloss it over and go for the throat of the President. They try to guise it under "nice" terms, but the objective is the same.
I bet the Democratic Underground is a good place to trash the President.
 
KrazyKollector said:
I don't know. Let's disect the '99 Hurrican that got Clinton flamed. The Dems bailed him out saying the same thing we are saying now. And that was a minor disater compared to now.
Go ahead. There's even a special place to do so.

I am sorry but I truly feel that a few people are just trying to make the President look bad, as if it's a goal in life.
I could say the reverse, but I am trying to respect the moderator's posts and talk about the posts and not the posters.

Aren't YOU concerned that LA is being run by a Governor who is unable to handle the task at hand? How many people's death will you put into her hands? Nagin's hands?
As I've said, this isn't the thread for that. And why, if we can talk about that, and we are talking about a lot, can't we talk about this?
 
tybee204 said:
Friday, Sept 2
Thank you. So he gave her until September 3, and then he sent in troops. Which, it seems, requires the IA. Why couldn't he do it sooner? On Friday, he gave the governor another 24 hours. Doesn't that bother anyone?
 
Dara said:
Thank you. So he gave her until September 3, and then he sent in troops. Which, it seems, requires the IA. Why couldn't he do it sooner? On Friday, he gave the governor another 24 hours. Doesn't that bother anyone?

Honestly, not as much as the Governor delaying from the flooding Tuesday morning, hell breaking out on Tuesday, the Superdome a disaster, the Mayor and the Governor crying about it on Wednesday, yet she still delays, delays, delays the official request for fed aid that's needed when Bush and she are together on Friday, she STILLLLLLL asks for another 24? I just cannot fathom why. This is one of my key sticking points. Why? Tuesday through Friday, and she still asks for another 24, which makes it Saturday. What good, possible reason could she have? I see your frustration why Bush didn't slap her off to the side and bulldoze in, but there are others of us that just can't get past the incompetency of the State level.

I just wanted to answer that, and then will try to back out, so as to keep it back on the topic of what Bush could have done quicker and better.
 
less0305 said:
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."
:blowkiss: :clap: :clap: :blowkiss:
 
DEPUTYDAWG said:
Honestly, not as much as the Governor delaying from the flooding Tuesday morning, hell breaking out on Tuesday, the Superdome a disaster, the Mayor and the Governor crying about it on Wednesday, yet she still delays, delays, delays the official request for fed aid that's needed when Bush and she are together on Friday, she STILLLLLLL asks for another 24? I just cannot fathom why. This is one of my key sticking points. Why? Tuesday through Friday, and she still asks for another 24, which makes it Saturday. What good, possible reason could she have? I see your frustration why Bush didn't slap her off to the side and bulldoze in, but there are others of us that just can't get past the incompetency of the State level.

I just wanted to answer that, and then will try to back out, so as to keep it back on the topic of what Bush could have done quicker and better.
Oh DD! I thought I wrote that lol. I scared myself.
 
Dara said:
Thank you. So he gave her until September 3, and then he sent in troops. Which, it seems, requires the IA. Why couldn't he do it sooner? On Friday, he gave the governor another 24 hours. Doesn't that bother anyone?
Not nearly as much as her inability to take charge and made meaningful decisions bothers me. Bush was trying to live by the Constitution and act within his Executive powers. Blanco is a nincompoop.
 
Wednesday, September 7

Explosive revelation by Fox News' Major Garrett.

On the Fox News Channel just a little while ago, Major Garrett, broke a very disturbing story for those on the left that want to play the blame game regarding the reaction to the Katrina. Here's his interview with Hugh Hewitt moments ago:

HH: Joined now by Major Garrett, correspondent for the Fox News Channel, We talked about that. Major Garrett, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show.

MG: Hugh, always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.

HH: You just broke a pretty big story. I was watching up on the corner television in my studio, and it's headlined that the Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies to the Superdome, Major Garrett. Tell us what you found out.

MG: Well, the Red Cross, Hugh, had pre-positioned a literal vanguard of trucks with water, food, blankets and hygiene items. They're not really big into medical response items, but those are the three biggies that we saw people at the New Orleans Superdome, and the convention center, needing most accutely. And all of us in America, I think, reasonably asked ourselves, geez. You know, I watch hurricanes all the time. And I see correspondents standing among rubble and refugees and evacuaees. But I always either see that Red Cross or Salvation Army truck nearby. Why don't I see that?

HH: And the answer is?

MG: The answer is the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come.

HH: Now Major Garrett, on what day did they block the delivery? Do you know specifically?

MG: I am told by the Red Cross, immediately after the storm passed.

HH: Okay, so that would be on Monday afternoon.

MG: That would have been Monday or Tuesday. The exact time, the hour, I don't have. But clearly, they had an evacuee situation at the Superdome, and of course, people gravitated to the convention center on an ad hoc basis. They sort of invented that as another place to go, because they couldn't stand the conditions at the Superdome.

HH: Any doubt in the Red Cross' mind that they were ready to go, but they were blocked?

MG: No. Absolutely none. They are absolutely unequivocal on that point.




http://www.radioblogger.com/


HH: And are they eager to get this story out there, because they are chagrined by the coverage that's been emanating from New Orleans?

MG: I think they are. I mean, and look. Every agency that is in the private sector, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Feed The Children, all the ones we typically see are aggrieved by all the crap that's being thrown around about the response to this hurricane, because they work hand and glove with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When FEMA is tarred and feathered, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army are tarred and feathered, because they work on a cooperative basis. They feel they are being sullied by this reaction.

HH: Of course they are. Now Major Garrett, what about the Louisiana governor's office of Homeland Security. Have they responded to this charge by the Red Cross, which is a blockbuster charge?

MG: I have not been able to reach them yet. But, what they have said consistently is, and what they told the Red Cross, we don't want you to come in there, because we have evacuees that we want to get out. And if you come in, they're more likely to stay. So I want your listeners to follow me here. At the very moment that Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans was screaming where's the food, where's the water, it was over the overpass, and state officials were saying you can't come in.

HH: How long would it have taken to deliver those supplies, Major Garrett, into the Superdome and possibly the convention center?

MG: That is a more difficult question to answer than you might think. There were areas, obviously, as you approached the Superdome, that were difficult to get to, because of the flood waters. And as the Red Cross explained it to me, look. We don't have amphibious vehicles. We have trucks and ambulance type vehicles. In some cases, after the flood waters rose as high as they did, we would have needed, at minimal, the Louisiana National Guard to bring us in, or maybe something bigger and badder, from the Marines or Army-type vehicle. They're not sure about that. But remember, Hugh, we were transfixed, I know I was. I'm sure you were and your listeners were, by my colleague, Shep Smith, and others on that overpass.

HH: Right.

MG: ...saying, wait a minute. We drove here. It didn't take us anything to drive here.

HH: Right.

MG: Why can't people just come here?

HH: I also have to conclude from what you're telling me, Major Garrett, is that had they been allowed to deliver when they wanted to deliver, which is at least a little bit prior to the levee, or at least prior to the waters rising, the supplies would have been pre-positioned, and the relief...you know, the people in the Superdome, and possibly at the convention center, I want to come back to that, would have been spared the worst of their misery.

MG: They would have been spared the lack of food, water and hygiene. I don't think there's any doubt that they would not have been spared the indignity of having nor workable bathrooms in short order.

HH: Now Major Garrett, let's turn to the convention center, because this will be, in the aftermath...did the Red Cross have ready to go into the convention center the supplies that we're talking about as well?

MG: Sure. They could have gone to any location, provided that the water wasn't too high, and they got some assistance.

HH: Now, were they utterly dependent upon the Louisiana state officials to okay them?

MG: Yes.

HH: Because you know, they do work with FEMA. But is it your understanding that FEMA and the Red Cross and the other relief agencies must get tht state's okay to act?

MG: As the Red Cross told me, they said look. We are not state actors. We are not the Army. We are a private organziation. We work in cooperation with both FEMA and the state officials. But the state told us A) it's not safe, because the water is dangerous. And we're now learning how toxic the water is. B) there's a security situation, because they didn't have a handle on the violence on the ground. And C) and I think this is most importantly, they wanted to evacuate out. They didn't want people to stay.

HH: Now off the record, will the Red Cross tell you what they think of Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin?

MG: No.

HH: Will they tell you what they think about FEMA director Brown?

MG: No.

HH: Will they tell you any...will they give any advice of how to make sure this doesn't happen again?

MG: Well, there is something, Hugh, that I think we have to be honest with ourselves about. New Orleans is a situation, because of its geography, utterly unique in America. We don't build cities in bowls, except there. This complicated the Red Cross efforts, and the FEMA efforts, from the start. In the mid-90's, the Red Cross opened a shelter in South Carolina that was eventually flooded. And there was a big controversy about that. After that, the Red Cross made a policy decision that it would never shelter, or seek to shelter, any evacuee from any hurricane, anywhere where flooding was likely to occur. High ground is where they were going to be, and where they were going to go. Well, that basically rules out all of New Orleans.

HH: Sure. Does the Red Cross, though, assist in evacuation, Major Garrett?

MG: Not under the state plan in Louisiana. And not very many other places, either, because again, the Red Cross is a responding private charity. It is not an evacuation charity. It does not assume, as you can well imagine, Hugh, the inevitable liability that would come with being in charge of evacuating.

HH: How senior are your sources at the Red Cross, Major Garrett?

MG: They're right next to Marty Evans, the president.

HH: So you have no doubt in your mind that they have...

MG: Oh, none. None. And I want to give credit to Bill O'Reilly, because he had Marty Evans on the O'Reilly Factor last night. And this is the first time Marty Evans said it. She said it on the O'Reilly Factor last night in a very sort of brief intro to her longer comments about dealing with the housing and other needs of the evacuees now. She said look. We were ready. We couldn't go in. They wouldn't let us in, and the interview continued. I developed it more fully today.

HH: And the 'they' are the Louisiana state officials?

MG: Right.

HH: Now any in the 'they'...is the New Orleans' mayor's staff involved as well? Or the New Orleans police department?

MG: Not that I'm aware of, because the decision was made and communicated to the Red Cross by the state department of Homeland Security and the state National Guard. Both of which report to the governor.

HH: Do they have any paper records of this communication?

MG: I did not ask that. It's a good question. I'll follow up with them.

HH: I sure would love to know that. And if you get it, send it to me. We'll put it up on the blog. Major Garrett, great story. Please keep us posted. Look forward to talking to you a lot in the next couple of weeks on this story. Thanks for breaking away from the Fox News Channel this afternoon.

End of interview
 
Pepper said:
Not nearly as much as her inability to take charge and made meaningful decisions bothers me. Bush was trying to live by the Constitution and act within his Executive powers. Blanco is a nincompoop.

Saw a sign in the Astrodome last weekend that read:

How do you spell DISASTER?

B-L-A-N-C-O

Hi pepper
 
Pepper said:
I think what we are seeing is a myriad of acts, declarations, proclamations and even laws that may contradict each other, and may not all have been tested to their Constitutionality. That's not so unusual in a government as complex as ours.

So true!!! Even the part about mandatory evacuations. Lawyers have said you can demand it, you can order it, but you can't legally go inside someone's house and take them out unless you have evidence of a criminal activity. And went on to say, if they did do it, it probably wouldn't hold up in court. At least, that's how I heard some attorneys explaining it in a roundtable discussion on some show I was watching. They seemed to all agree.
 
Pepper said:
Not nearly as much as her inability to take charge and made meaningful decisions bothers me. Bush was trying to live by the Constitution and act within his Executive powers. Blanco is a nincompoop.
Can't you be bothered about both? I can.

Now, I've tried to keep this thread on target but the very telling response of some is to bring in issues that deflect blame. That's just sad.

How does the report that the state blocked the Red Cross on the first day absolve Bush? If anything that was a DAY ONE indicator that perhaps the governor wasn't doing her job and he needed to act.
 
Dara said:
Thank you. So he gave her until September 3, and then he sent in troops. Which, it seems, requires the IA. Why couldn't he do it sooner? On Friday, he gave the governor another 24 hours. Doesn't that bother anyone?

Simple....NO. Doesn't concern me. Okay. No, nada, zilch.
 
DEPUTYDAWG said:
Honestly, not as much as the Governor delaying from the flooding Tuesday morning, hell breaking out on Tuesday, the Superdome a disaster, the Mayor and the Governor crying about it on Wednesday, yet she still delays, delays, delays the official request for fed aid that's needed when Bush and she are together on Friday, she STILLLLLLL asks for another 24? I just cannot fathom why. This is one of my key sticking points. Why? Tuesday through Friday, and she still asks for another 24, which makes it Saturday. What good, possible reason could she have?
That's a compelling list. And you're right to be bothered. So, why did Bush defer to her? Why did he let her keep doing things to make that list grow and let more people die? If she was keeping the Red Cross out Monday or Tuesday, that was a big indicator of how thing were going to go and if we already have this long list, I wonder what Bush knew Friday when he left her in charge. People were still dying.

What reason could she have to ask for 24 more hours? I don't know and I'm not going to discuss it here, because the fact is (I htink) she did ask and the one person who could say no deferred to her. Her role is crucial to disset, but I personally would prefer it be left for the many threads (I think we got a new one in the last hour) where we're discussing the state and local level.

I see your frustration why Bush didn't slap her off to the side and bulldoze in, but there are others of us that just can't get past the incompetency of the State level.
Ok. But if those people can't get past it to consider Bush's response fairly, perhaps they're not in the right frame of mind to discuss it. If you're (generic) resorting personal attacks on me and high fiving those making them, then maybe this is one topic you can't discuss yet. I know I'm too upset to discuss the subject of one thread. I started two responses and each time stopped because I was too emotional and I didn't think my tone would help.
I just wanted to answer that, and then will try to back out, so as to keep it back on the topic of what Bush could have done quicker and better.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
 
Dara said:
Can't you be bothered about both? I can.

Now, I've tried to keep this thread on target but the very telling response of some is to bring in issues that deflect blame. That's just sad.

How does the report that the state blocked the Red Cross on the first day absolve Bush? If anything that was a DAY ONE indicator that perhaps the governor wasn't doing her job and he needed to act.

The thread is: Could Bush Have Done More


Tuesday, August 29, as the levees broke after the brunt of the storm had passed. That very day, the Army Corps of Engineers was already working on levee repair. And the Coast Guard was already in the air with helicopters rescuing people from rooftops, ultimately employing 300 choppers. These are both Federal agencies under Bush’s command.

DAY 1--Bush was doing his job. What were the Mayor and Gov doing?
 
Dara said:
Now, I've tried to keep this thread on target but the very telling response of some is to bring in issues that deflect blame. That's just sad.

Personally, I don't consider myself deflecting blame. I'm just focused on understanding, from the ground floor up, what happened in the beginning...and moving on up. It will get to FEMA and Bush, it will. But since I don't truly understand and know all the details, timelines, etc., I don't know EXACTLY what to blame on him. It will take time. Lord knows everyday we're learning more.

It's no different than any investigation done here at work. We start at the beginning, the lowest level and go on up the chain-of-command. Who knew what, and when. I can't blame one of the supervisors when I don't fully understand what the subordinate did or did not do. And when did the supervisor become aware of it? And then what did he do to try to resolve it? Did the supervisor handle it within procedure, and properly? If not, a whole new investigation is begun. And round and round we go. But it always starts from the "incident."

JMHO.
 
Dara said:
Can't you be bothered about both? I can.

Now, I've tried to keep this thread on target but the very telling response of some is to bring in issues that deflect blame. That's just sad.

How does the report that the state blocked the Red Cross on the first day absolve Bush? If anything that was a DAY ONE indicator that perhaps the governor wasn't doing her job and he needed to act.
Trying to discuss Bush's actions in a vacuum without discussing others is like trying to remove the egg from a freshly baked cake. It can't be done. It is a very complex issue all levels of government.
 
TexMex said:
The thread is: Could Bush Have Done More


Tuesday, August 29, as the levees broke after the brunt of the storm had passed. That very day, the Army Corps of Engineers was already working on levee repair. And the Coast Guard was already in the air with helicopters rescuing people from rooftops, ultimately employing 300 choppers. These are both Federal agencies under Bush’s command.

DAY 1--Bush was doing his job. What were the Mayor and Gov doing?
He did something. Could he have done more?

Well, we haven't really gotten to this but he could have done more by appointing qualified people instead of Brown and Cheroff. But that's getting into a whole new area.

The worse a picture that is painted of the lower government, the worse it looks for Bush to delay.
 
Dara said:
He did something. Could he have done more?

Well, we haven't really gotten to this but he could have done more by appointing qualified people instead of Brown and Cheroff. But that's getting into a whole new area.

The worse a picture that is painted of the lower government, the worse it looks for Bush to delay.

He didn't delay

Day one ---within hours of the levee collapse Bush had people starting to repair it and ordered the Coast Guard to rescue people.
 
Pepper said:
Trying to discuss Bush's actions in a vacuum without discussing others is like trying to remove the egg from a freshly baked cake. It can't be done. It is a very complex issue all levels of government.
It is complex, but the way most posters are bringing in the mayor and governor is jsut to say, "So what, they're MORE to blame." Ok, if we concede that, why did he leave them, or her, in charge if legally he could have acted?
 
TexMex said:
He didn't delay

Day one ---within hours of the levee collapse Bush had people starting to repair it and ordered the Coast Guard to rescue people.
That is one specific act. So, he had the power to do more. The governor didn't stop him, and she was calling the shots, right? So he did that. Why did he falter later?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
4,299
Total visitors
4,430

Forum statistics

Threads
592,404
Messages
17,968,480
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top