IDBillzFan Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 PS. Do you think those two cretins will get fired for getting busted on camera looting? 431236[/snapback] Didn't they quit with everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Didn't they quit with everyone else? 431244[/snapback] I would love to see them get prosecuted for it when this mess is resolved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I would love to see them get prosecuted for it when this mess is resolved! 431246[/snapback] Let's start with Nagin and work our way down...not up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I haven't read all this crap, but has anyone suggested that there are certain things not worth investigating? And why? I'd be in favor of investigating everything. The only problem is that there are a lot of newspapers that made their minds up a long time ago before investigating anything. 431167[/snapback] Yeah, but that is nothing new and it will never change. This may very well be the worst natural disaster in US history so you have to expect that the media is going to go more than a little crazy. There has been very good and very bad coverage of this and everything in between. You can't possibly have a disaster of this size and scope without there being extensive study and investigations for years after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Let's start with Nagin and work our way down...not up. 431248[/snapback] Nah, he'll end up a hero. Remember.....FLIGHTSUIT! HALLIBURTON! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! GOAT STORY!!! EDIT: Sorry, I just love saying that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 And FEMA's response was about twice as fast now as compared to Andrew...and they're taking even more crap. FEMA's public image would probably be better off if they moved far more slowly in the future. Seriously, though...Clinton was probably right to have FEMA reporting directly to the president. There's been some supposition - with which I agree - that the response would have been faster in NO if the president had been able to directly kick some people's ass immediately. Supporting that is the fact that when the situation was taken over by a group that does report pretty much directly to the President (NORTHCOM), things started moving...but then, they may have started moving because resources had already been staging forward for three days and were set to arrive in-theater en masse anyway. There's two or three top-shelf textbook-quality books that can be written about this whole situation. And a thousand other "It's <fill in the blank>'s fault!" media-frenzied books that will be written and read by a public who ignores all else... 431227[/snapback] It can be pretty difficult to get a real grasp of an event this large and complicated. One thing is for sure, no one is going to want to be the scapegoat for this and that is certainly behind the increased volume of some of the debate. I guess the History Channel will have it all worked out for us in a documentary in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 It can be pretty difficult to get a real grasp of an event this large and complicated. One thing is for sure, no one is going to want to be the scapegoat for this and that is certainly behind the increased volume of some of the debate. I guess the History Channel will have it all worked out for us in a documentary in 2007. 431255[/snapback] Because everyobody involved knows they can be the scapegoat. On the Federal level, it's the process - not personalities. It took 9/11 to try to change some things, and to this day many are still being fought. That is not an administration issue, either - it's our government, the way they do things. We have lots of laws, and lots of rice bowls. It's going to take Katrina to relook and rethink how other things get done. People are now doing the best they can, I don't think anyone really grasps the scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Yeah, but that is nothing new and it will never change. This may very well be the worst natural disaster in US history so you have to expect that the media is going to go more than a little crazy. There has been very good and very bad coverage of this and everything in between. 431250[/snapback] The coverage has been horrible. I'd say I've never seen the news agencies do a worse job. There has been little relevant information passed along. Urban legends have been reported as fact. "On the ground" reporters look like they're trying to win Oscars. People at the news desk aren't there to editorialize but it's basically the norm. CNN just spent 10 minutes interviewing some woman who thinks NBC was wrong for editing out Kanye West's crazy, race-baiting rant on last Friday's west coast broadcast of a charity telethon. Some loon from the LA Times thinks he was somehow "disenfranchised" by that. You can't possibly have a disaster of this size and scope without there being extensive study and investigations for years after.No doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Indeed. I think I would rather find/be with/bury my loved ones than go to Vegas and party. A nice gesture, but a bit premature...PS. Do you think those two cretins will get fired for getting busted on camera looting? 431236[/snapback] The funniest part of the camera crew catching those two cops looting Wal-Mart was when the one looked into the camera and dead-panned "I'm just here to stop the looting" and then continued looting herself. Hope those couple of pairs of shoes from Wal-Mart were worth it, ladies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Bill Clinton, in a departure from the norm, elevated FEMA to cabinet level post so that the head of FEMA was able to report directly to him. FEMA's response to Hurricane Andrew was widely criticized. This problem may have cost, according to some analysts, Bush his second term. This made FEMA a pretty hot issue at the start of Clinton's first term. Clinton's appointee, James Lee Witt, was the first FEMA director to have prior experience in emergency services having headed a state agency for emergency response for 4 years prior to his appointment. In contrast, Bush '41 had appointed an inexperienced buddy of John Sununu and put Marilyn Qayle on FEMA's board. In February 1996, Clinton elevated FEMA to cabinet level status: Witt 431143[/snapback] Thanks for the cronology. Also, thanks to other posters who answered. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 You are not even willing to suggest that there is even the slightest possibility that Bush did anything wrong, directly or indirectly, under any circumstances, are you? Apparently the only posts of mine you have read are in direct response to you, because I have criticized Bush and the GOP on numerous occasions. However, he did hire a man with no experience in emergency services when there were far more experienced people available... A man who now has more experience managing federal hurricane relief (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne last year) than anyone else I can think of, so I'm don't understand why this is such an important issue for you. The hire certainly seems justified by his performance up to, and possibly including, the largest natural disaster in our nation's history. ...and he did downgrade FEMA from a cabinet post folding it in to DHS. Further, there is no doubt that in the middle of this crisis, administration officials were saying things in public that were simply not true either intentionally or in ignorance of the facts. At the very least, these issues are worthy of public critique and analysis... Worthy of public critique? Perhaps. People make mistakes; poor communications after a hurricane is always an issue. 32,000 rescues, 182,000 people housed in 559 shelters, 7,000 FEMA responders, 4,000 US Coast Guard, 43,000 National Guard, 15,000 Active Duty Military, 11,300,000 MRE's and 18,000,000 liters of water distributed, and you're complaining the FEMA head was fired by some horse association years ago. ..but you can't even tolerate that can you? You have to launch a rage filled insult campaign at anyone even suggesting that there were some problems worthy of legitimate inquiry. I don't believe that statement accurately describes either of our posts, but neither of us are the casual observer, now are we? Let me save you some time in drafting your reply, simpy cut and paste: Bush=GOoD. I see you still haven't gotten the memo about being fired as my personal spokesman. I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Because everyobody involved knows they can be the scapegoat. On the Federal level, it's the process - not personalities. It took 9/11 to try to change some things, and to this day many are still being fought. That is not an administration issue, either - it's our government, the way they do things. We have lots of laws, and lots of rice bowls. It's going to take Katrina to relook and rethink how other things get done. People are now doing the best they can, I don't think anyone really grasps the scale. 431289[/snapback] Wow... Nice... Very nice post! Depends how things go here and where I stand in regards to the immediate staffing mission here at the time, I volunteered to go down there and help with the repair and clean-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 The funniest part of the camera crew catching those two cops looting Wal-Mart was when the one looked into the camera and dead-panned "I'm just here to stop the looting" and then continued looting herself. Hope those couple of pairs of shoes from Wal-Mart were worth it, ladies. 431299[/snapback] I am not sure if you will find this... It was a big picture in the Chicago Tribune. They showed a guy mowing his lawn (what ever couple square inches of wasteland there was). It said that he wanted to restore things back to routine. WTF? My partner here said: "Take a closer look at the photo, tell me what is wrong with it." I looked at first and couldn't find a thing (outside the couple square inches of wasteland he was mowing)... My co-worker said look closer, c mon!... So I did. On the handle of the mower was a tag with the price on it!... Looked like the thing came right off the showroom floor! You make the call! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 That wasn't meant to target you, just commenting on the level of responses I have received as soon as I suggested that the hiring of Brown and demoting FEMA from the cabinet were legit issues to investigate. 431157[/snapback] This reminds me of a story when I was a kid: The Boy Who Cried Wolf. You see the Flightsuit contingent running around this board blaming Bush for everything, regardless of how ignorant the reasons. Then a legitimate criticism comes up and people do not take them seriously and just write them off as crying "blame Bush first, find a reason later." See where I am coming from? Now, Congress plans on starting hearings next week into this. Ummm...excuse me...but the people you plan on calling have things to do, like rescue people, care for these people, clean up the mess, etc. "Let's take the leaders away from helping people to find out why they are not helping people." Brilliant lahjik there. These investigations could not wait until things stabilized? Oh, I forgot. It is more important to score political points. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 It can be pretty difficult to get a real grasp of an event this large and complicated. One thing is for sure, no one is going to want to be the scapegoat for this and that is certainly behind the increased volume of some of the debate. I guess the History Channel will have it all worked out for us in a documentary in 2007. 431255[/snapback] I am sure Moore will have his version of the facts in a documentary out as soon as he is released from rehab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 This reminds me of a story when I was a kid: The Boy Who Cried Wolf. You see the Flightsuit contingent running around this board blaming Bush for everything, regardless of how ignorant the reasons. Then a legitimate criticism comes up and people do not take them seriously and just write them off as crying "blame Bush first, find a reason later." See where I am coming from? Now, Congress plans on starting hearings next week into this. Ummm...excuse me...but the people you plan on calling have things to do, like rescue people, care for these people, clean up the mess, etc. "Let's take the leaders away from helping people to find out why they are not helping people." Brilliant lahjik there. These investigations could not wait until things stabilized? Oh, I forgot. It is more important to score political points. Got it. 431705[/snapback] It has always been the case that disasters offer politicians a chance to garner some publicity and to look heroic. They are going to take advantage of it from the White House to Congress and on down the line. The Congress isn't going to sit on the sidelines for long while everyone else hogs up all those spotlights. I'm surprised the hearings didn't start yesterday. On some levels, congressional hearings do have some upsides. One of them is that they can happen very fast and force people to answer questions under oath and to produce documents. That can happen in a suit but it takes a long, long time for those to move forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 "...A man who now has more experience managing federal hurricane relief (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne last year) than anyone else I can think of..." "... and you're complaining the FEMA head was fired by some horse association years ago. 431518[/snapback] That wasn't the only criticism. For example, he didn't know of the thousands languishing at the convention center even though the networks had been covering the story there. Those people were told to go there buy the authorities. How could the man most responsible to help them not know that? I don't know the answer but it is a legitimate inquiry. I know someone who had and has more experience and who Bush himself praised in a debate with Al Gore: James Lee Witt. The hiring of such an inexperienced man is, again, a legitimate inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 It has always been the case that disasters offer politicians a chance to garner some publicity and to look heroic. They are going to take advantage of it from the White House to Congress and on down the line. The Congress isn't going to sit on the sidelines for long while everyone else hogs up all those spotlights. I'm surprised the hearings didn't start yesterday. On some levels, congressional hearings do have some upsides. One of them is that they can happen very fast and force people to answer questions under oath and to produce documents. That can happen in a suit but it takes a long, long time for those to move forward. 431780[/snapback] Elenore Holmes Norton was on the local lib radio, WTOP, this morning blaming Bush for everything. After about 2 minutes of her crap even the reporter had enough and basically told her she was wrong and that the state and local government was responsible for the evacuation and preperation prior to the storm and they failed miserably. She said it wasn't their fault and that the federal government should have made them do more. She also blamed Bush that the leevee broke and thet he should have shored it up knowing the storm was approaching. The reporter then said the local government was reponsible for their city and the leevee, and justifying the fixes years ago, and they didn't do it. He also said and which she agreed finally was the major problem was that NO and the stae, had not upgraded their comm gear so it was in line with the feds. She and the reporter agreed that was the biggest mistake during this whole incident and accounted for the reason the breaks, and the convention center problems were as bad as they were. Seems all local and state govs were given money and prdered to upgrade comm to make what DHS and FEMA had but NO and Louisiana used the money elsewhere. But it wasn't Bush's fault according EHN that they were allowed to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 It has always been the case that disasters offer politicians a chance to garner some publicity and to look heroic. They are going to take advantage of it from the White House to Congress and on down the line. The Congress isn't going to sit on the sidelines for long while everyone else hogs up all those spotlights. I'm surprised the hearings didn't start yesterday. On some levels, congressional hearings do have some upsides. One of them is that they can happen very fast and force people to answer questions under oath and to produce documents. That can happen in a suit but it takes a long, long time for those to move forward. 431780[/snapback] I don't have a problem with the concept of Congressional hearings. I just hink that more good can be done by having the people on-site, then sitting in front of a Congressional panel while the people up for re-election try to score political points. Take care of the people effected. Screw the political gains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 That wasn't the only criticism. For example, he didn't know of the thousands languishing at the convention center even though the networks had been covering the story there. Those people were told to go there buy the authorities. How could the man most responsible to help them not know that? I don't know the answer but it is a legitimate inquiry. 431791[/snapback] I'm just guessing here, but you've never really managed people before in any type of large or complicated capacity, right? Just because you are the #1 guy doesn't mean that you know every detail of every little thing that is happening in your organization. Being the boss means that basically you are managing the overall process that is implemented by your managers. You seem to be endlessly hung up on this convention center point. What are you suggesting? That he should have been watching CNN? So what if he didn't personally know who was in some specific shelter? Does that necessarily mean that no one in FEMA knew that or was doing anything about it? I guess people who have never worked in that capacity don't understand. That's why there are laughably ignorant people who get all worked up thinking that Bush is personally in charge of where each firemen is assigned to stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts