Thurman's Helmet Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 And you would be wrong. It was directed by the Hart-Rudman Commission, and pretty much forced by the Democrats to fully implement a full DHS type organization. It's purpose was to help lines of communications in reacting to attacks primarily and less so on "natural disasters". In addition, it called for limiting NSC's role and only giving them limited planning and coordination roles. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/BG1571.cfm 441983[/snapback] the only appropriate response from pope zimli at this point would simply be; "DING!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 And you would be wrong. It was directed by the Hart-Rudman Commission, and pretty much forced by the Democrats to fully implement a full DHS type organization. It's purpose was to help lines of communications in reacting to attacks primarily and less so on "natural disasters". In addition, it called for limiting NSC's role and only giving them limited planning and coordination roles. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/BG1571.cfm 441983[/snapback] Actually... President George Bush's proposed legislation (H.R. 5005) creating a Department of Homeland Security (DHS)... [...] A number of House committees have removed the multi-use functions from H.R. 5005. During markup of the bill last week, for example, the House Judiciary and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees removed provisions that would transfer the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) to the Department of Homeland Security. I read it just the opposite of what you're saying: the president's bill moved FEMA under DHS, but the provision was removed in House committee...obviously, to be reinstated before the floor vote. The real test of whether or not Bush wanted FEMA under DHS would be the original text of H.R. 5005, which I haven't yet located. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Actually...I read it just the opposite of what you're saying: the president's bill moved FEMA under DHS, but the provision was removed in House committee...obviously, to be reinstated before the floor vote. The real test of whether or not Bush wanted FEMA under DHS would be the original text of H.R. 5005, which I haven't yet located. 442118[/snapback] The orginal didn't have it in. It was added and removed during several committees and only agreed to after much bantering. But the original one, did not have it in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 The orginal didn't have it in. It was added and removed during several committees and only agreed to after much bantering. But the original one, did not have it in there. 442127[/snapback] And like I said...I want to see the text of the original. The analysis you linked to was pretty good...but it refutes your statements that Congress and not Bush put FEMA under DHS. Not saying you're wrong - hell, bills that go through Congress get written, rewritten, and generally stomped on so much through the legislative process that identifying a single point of responsibility for a single legislative line-item is a bogus exercise anyway. Just saying I want to see the original text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 But...But...HE READ SOME ARTICLES!!!!! BUSH BAD!! 441439[/snapback] God you're retarded. I specifically mentioned that the title of the post was more or less sarcasm, and I was talking about the reforms that FEMA was trying to make but failed. Way to see the big picture, as usual. All the President did was give the lemmings out there a single place to focus blame, diffusing the situation almost entirely. Way to buy in. 441521[/snapback] I actually agree with you. One of the things that had to happen here from Bush's point of view to organize a response to this is to create a central way to look at the problems of the effort, which he is doing by taking responsibility and then saying that he wants to find out what went wrong (something like that). This allows a focused look at the situation, one in which Bush needs and one that is a good move for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts