PDA

View Full Version : Stick a fork in him...Mike Brown done


memyselfI
09-09-2005, 12:11 PM
LOLOL

MSNBC reporting he's being 'removed' from Katrina efforts. Guess it was not the padded resume and not the drowning people that finally did it. :rolleyes:

dirk digler
09-09-2005, 12:16 PM
Appears so. Fox is reporting it as well. Good riddance to that loser.

memyselfI
09-09-2005, 12:18 PM
Appears so. Fox is reporting it as well. Good riddance to that loser.

Ditto.

Kudos to the WH for admitting they made a mistake!!!!

Rausch
09-09-2005, 12:26 PM
And this is?...

Mr. Laz
09-09-2005, 12:30 PM
i guess a report has come out that Brown's resume wasn't precisely true.

Pitt Gorilla
09-09-2005, 12:34 PM
He's still a hell of a safety and I'd take him on the Chiefs any day.

NewChief
09-09-2005, 12:36 PM
And this is?...

The Director of FEMA.

StcChief
09-09-2005, 12:40 PM
Well fall guy found.

Padding your resume will catch up with you. Doesn't matter what job it is.

penchief
09-09-2005, 12:42 PM
Hey! Browny's doing a heckuva job!

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 12:43 PM
Wonder when the mayor and governor will be stepping down?

trndobrd
09-09-2005, 12:45 PM
Once Bush stated that the response was unsatisfactory, Brown should have started checking the want ads.

memyselfI
09-09-2005, 12:46 PM
Wonder when the mayor and governor will be stepping down?

I think they are off the hook for the short term. Clearly, if the WH felt that holding on to Brown while continuing to point fingers there way was a strategy that worked/was working then Brown would stay put.

penchief
09-09-2005, 12:48 PM
I may get skewered for this but I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Browny. He is clearly in over his head and he clearly wasn't qualified. But that was not his fault. He's ultimately going to be the fall guy for an administration that doesn't practice pragmatic governance but politics instead.

I'm sure the Admiral is a better choice than Browny but if this administration is truly ready to do what is in the best interest of it's citizens, why not James Lee Witt? Not only is he the most qualified person for the job but the grunts at FEMA have a lot of confidence and respect in his leadership.

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 12:50 PM
I think they are off the hook for the short term.

So do you think they should step down?

trndobrd
09-09-2005, 12:53 PM
I may get skewered for this but I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Browny. He is clearly in over his head and he clearly wasn't qualified. But that was not his fault. He's ultimately going to be the fall guy for an administration that doesn't practice pragmatic governance but politics instead.

I'm sure the Admiral is a better choice than Browny but if this administration is truly ready to do what is in the best interest of it's citizens, why not James Lee Witt? Not only is he the most qualified person for the job but the grunts at FEMA have a lot of confidence and respect in his leadership.


Perhaps the administration felt that someone with a military background would have an easier time interfacing with the multiple military services working on the ground.

Radar Chief
09-09-2005, 12:56 PM
Wonder when the mayor and governor will be stepping down?

Hopefully, at least for the poor residents, no later than the next election.
Course I don’t know, they’re both do’n a pretty good job of displacing blame on teh Debble. :shrug:

NewChief
09-09-2005, 01:00 PM
Perhaps the administration felt that someone with a military background would have an easier time interfacing with the multiple military services working on the ground.


Probably. Of course, if we needed someone to interact with Arabian stallions, Browny would have been the man!

penchief
09-09-2005, 01:07 PM
Is it coincidental that the day after the president.... I mean vice president.... visited the affected area that Mike Brown lost his job?

I guess it should not really surprise anyone that Dick Cheney presides over the Cheneyburton Administration.

Well, I guess Browny didn't technically lose his job but that only goes to this administration's unwillingness to ever admit to a mistake.

Taco John
09-09-2005, 01:34 PM
Is it coincidental that the day after the president.... I mean vice president.... visited the affected area that Mike Brown lost his job?

I guess it should not really surprise anyone that Dick Cheney presides over the Cheneyburton Administration.

Well, I guess Browny didn't technically lose his job but that only goes to this administration's unwillingness to ever admit to a mistake.



No coincidence... This thing got kicked upstairs to Cheney's office and a real leader is on the job now.

MOhillbilly
09-09-2005, 01:36 PM
LOLOL

MSNBC reporting he's being 'removed' from Katrina efforts. Guess it was not the padded resume and not the drowning people that finally did it. :rolleyes:


why is that funny? Americans died. I fail to see any humor in it!

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 01:40 PM
why is that funny? Americans died. I fail to see any humor in it!

Because it's clear that for some political fallout is more important than humanity fallout.

MOhillbilly
09-09-2005, 01:47 PM
Because it's clear that for some political fallout is more important than humanity fallout.

And thats whats more wrong w/ American politics that anything else.

Pitt Gorilla
09-09-2005, 01:58 PM
why is that funny? Americans died. I fail to see any humor in it!
The truly sad part is how the administration initially defended Brown, or perhaps, that he was appointed to this position in the first place.

memyselfI
09-09-2005, 02:00 PM
why is that funny? Americans died. I fail to see any humor in it!

It's funny that he was removed immediately after it was determined he fudged his resume and not immedately after he proved incompetent. That is funny, ironic, not funny humorous. It was the lying not the dying that cost him... :hmmm:

Rausch
09-09-2005, 02:32 PM
The Director of FEMA.

Well, that's a good first step...

memyselfI
09-09-2005, 02:35 PM
The truly sad part is how the administration initially defended Brown, or perhaps, that he was appointed to this position in the first place.

Well this is as close as they will ever get to an admission of error or apology so I'll take it.

They were in a pickle. If they left him they were in denial about the situation and if they remove him they tacitly admit guilt... :hmmm: They obviously chose the lesser of the two evils.

Logical
09-09-2005, 03:40 PM
So do you think they should step down?Personally what difference does it make if the NO mayor steps down, there is no city left to govern. Seems like the government should be disbanded in NO and replaced with an Emergency Oversight Committee. As to the Governor shouldn't that be up to the people of Louisiana?

Chief Henry
09-09-2005, 04:13 PM
i guess a report has come out that Brown's resume wasn't precisely true.



Falsifying your resume is a real stupid thing to do. I'm glad Brown is
gone from that capacity too. In the interviews I've seen him on tv he looked like he had "dear in the head lights" look to him He was in over his head.

buddha
09-09-2005, 04:35 PM
Wonder when the mayor and governor will be stepping down?

They would, but they would drown!

Taco John
09-09-2005, 05:51 PM
Wonder when the mayor and governor will be stepping down?



I don't know about that. It seems that if New Orleans doesn't have a Mayor, they don't have a city.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2005, 05:51 PM
I think the military should have gone in there and forcefully evacuated the city before the cane hit..

unlurking
09-09-2005, 06:08 PM
As others have said, good start, now it's time to drop the hammer on local officials.

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 08:41 PM
Personally what difference does it make if the NO mayor steps down, there is no city left to govern. Seems like the government should be disbanded in NO and replaced with an Emergency Oversight Committee. As to the Governor shouldn't that be up to the people of Louisiana?

That's not true. There is a city to put back. If he can't evacutate it properly what makes anyone think he can build it back up?

Seems to me to let this inept guy in charge is the same as leaving Brown in charge of the relief effort.

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 08:43 PM
I don't know about that. It seems that if New Orleans doesn't have a Mayor, they don't have a city.

See my last post.

Pants
09-09-2005, 08:49 PM
I think the military should have gone in there and forcefully evacuated the city before the cane hit..

No, because that's what the commie bastards in Cuba do, right mlyonsd? Yeah, too bad they're doing it now...

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 09:02 PM
No, because that's what the commie bastards in Cuba do, right mlyonsd? Yeah, too bad they're doing it now...

Here's the deal.

No matter who was President, no matter who was in charge of FEMA, no matter who was the Governor of LA, no matter who was the Mayor of NO.......

The fact is this disaster was so huge and so widespread none of the above would be able to handle it such that some poor person wouldn't have to wait 4 or 5 days for rescue.

If you believe otherwise than you are a dumb f**k.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2005, 09:32 PM
I think the military should have gone in there and forcefully evacuated the city before the cane hit..

This post was TIC BTW..

memyselfI
09-09-2005, 10:01 PM
Here's the deal.

No matter who was President, no matter who was in charge of FEMA, no matter who was the Governor of LA, no matter who was the Mayor of NO.......

The fact is this disaster was so huge and so widespread none of the above would be able to handle it such that some poor person wouldn't have to wait 4 or 5 days for rescue.

If you believe otherwise than you are a dumb f**k.

Not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=aa642b8c89c27c01&ex=1283918400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop Aid

By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
and THOM SHANKER
Published: September 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then."

By Wednesday, she had asked for 40,000 soldiers.

In the discussions in Washington, also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than the Guard.

By last Wednesday, Pentagon officials said even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours, could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops, which are specially trained and equipped for civilian law enforcement duties.

In the end, the flow of thousands of National Guard soldiers, especially military police, was accelerated from other states.

"I was there. I saw what needed to be done," Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview. "They were the fastest, best-capable, most appropriate force to get there in the time allowed. And that's what it's all about."

But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.

The call never came, administration officials said, in part because military officials believed Guard troops would get to the stricken region faster and because administration civilians worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters.

Louisiana officials were furious that there was not more of a show of force, in terms of relief supplies and troops, from the federal government in the middle of last week. As the water was rising in New Orleans, the governor repeatedly questioned whether Washington had started its promised surge of federal resources.

"We needed equipment," Ms. Blanco said in an interview. "Helicopters. We got isolated."

Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.

In a separate discussion last weekend, the governor also rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard.

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the military's Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials before an approaching hurricane.

The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time Hurricane Katrina reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and marines to the scene.

After the hurricane passed New Orleans and the levees broke, flooding the city, it became increasingly evident that disaster-response efforts were badly bogged down.

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

The issue of federalizing the response was one of several legal issues considered in a flurry of meetings at the Justice Department, the White House and other agencies, administration officials said.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice Department lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to help local authorities, those officials said. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government had authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor's objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, administration officials said. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Ms. Blanco disagreed.

"Over the last year, we have had about 5,000 out, at one time," she said. "They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor."

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the experience with Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation's plans to handle disaster.

"This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties," Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for domestic security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested that active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon's leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local "first responders," including civilian police and the National Guard.

At a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said, "The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe.""

alnorth
09-09-2005, 10:28 PM
meme, the governor refused to allow the feds to take control over the situation. The only way for Bush to move any faster would be to invoke the insurrection act against the governor of Louisiana.

However, the insurrection act has never been invoked over the objection of the governor since the civil war. Using the insurrection act to effectively remove the governor from power during the crisis would have been extreme, and disaster or no, something I am a bit uncomfortable with seeing any president do unless the circumstances were dire.

This is a situation no one really thought of before. When a disaster like this happens, surely the governor would move heaven and earth, surrender power to the feds, do anything to save their people.

What if a governor refuses to do that? What happens if a governor asks for limited aid that seems clear from the outside to be insufficient, and adamantly refuses to surrender control of the situation?

Effectively, the Democrats are blaming Bush for not declaring their fellow Democratic governor incompetent and temporarily removing all of her authority under the insurrection act. Its easy to say, 20/20 hindsight now, that Bush should have aggressively shoved her aside, but as it was happening, thats a rather drastic and extreme decision.

Frankie
09-09-2005, 10:33 PM
Wonder when the mayor and governor will be stepping down?
There are more qualified candidates for stepping down way up higher.

Frankie
09-09-2005, 10:35 PM
Kudos to the WH for admitting they made a mistake!!!!
Somebody is made to fall on his sword to coverup the big boss's total incompetence. No kudos. The beat goes on. :shake:

alnorth
09-09-2005, 10:36 PM
There are more qualified candidates for stepping down way up higher.

Since the head of FEMA is likely going to be ousted soon, the governor and mayor would be next in line for the guillotine.

alnorth
09-09-2005, 10:38 PM
Somebody is made to fall on his sword to coverup the big boss's total incompetence. No kudos. The beat goes on. :shake:

Bush was forbidden from doing anything more than was done during the initial responce by the Stafford Act. The only way around it is to use the Insurrection Act, for the first time since the civil war, against the Democratic governor of Louisiana, declaring her incompetent, and stripping her of the power of her office.

Somehow, I think your reaction at the time would have been disbelief and outrage.

Baby Lee
09-10-2005, 07:06 AM
I think the military should have gone in there and forcefully evacuated the city before the cane hit..
Then the story would've been how the jackbooted Feds under Bush trampled minority civil rights and the principles of Federalism, and forced poor people into refugee status against their will, with no acknowledgement of the lives saved.

the Talking Can
09-10-2005, 07:50 AM
Bush was forbidden from doing anything more than was done during the initial responce by the Stafford Act. The only way around it is to use the Insurrection Act, for the first time since the civil war, against the Democratic governor of Louisiana, declaring her incompetent, and stripping her of the power of her office.

Somehow, I think your reaction at the time would have been disbelief and outrage.

That's not true. His powers have been discussed on this board. His own National Response Plan gave him the power once he declared it an official disaster on Aug. 26th.

No one would have been outraged at the President showing leadership and saving lives during the greatest natural disaster of our lifetimes.

But we are outraged to find out he appointed a political cronie with no experience and a faked resume to the head of FEMA. That cost lives. And that is outrageous.

He is also responsible for neutering FEMA by placing it in the Dept. of Homeland Security which has proven to be a cluster**** of inept management.

These are the facts of the matter. People insiting he bears no responsibility for being President is another issue.

memyselfI
09-10-2005, 08:49 AM
meme, the governor refused to allow the feds to take control over the situation. The only way for Bush to move any faster would be to invoke the insurrection act against the governor of Louisiana.

However, the insurrection act has never been invoked over the objection of the governor since the civil war. Using the insurrection act to effectively remove the governor from power during the crisis would have been extreme, and disaster or no, something I am a bit uncomfortable with seeing any president do unless the circumstances were dire.

This is a situation no one really thought of before. When a disaster like this happens, surely the governor would move heaven and earth, surrender power to the feds, do anything to save their people.

What if a governor refuses to do that? What happens if a governor asks for limited aid that seems clear from the outside to be insufficient, and adamantly refuses to surrender control of the situation?

Effectively, the Democrats are blaming Bush for not declaring their fellow Democratic governor incompetent and temporarily removing all of her authority under the insurrection act. Its easy to say, 20/20 hindsight now, that Bush should have aggressively shoved her aside, but as it was happening, thats a rather drastic and extreme decision.

The circumstances here WERE dire.

1. Blanco knew her NG would need policing authority and if she surrendered it she would have forfeited that authority.

2. The fact that this was even an issue is because all of the post 9/11 haste to throw rules and regulations on the book to make it look like things were being done. But robbing Peter to pay Paul was not doing something productive.

3. The fact that there were so many of LA NG in Iraq did play a part in this. She would have had 40% more NG on the ground to help if they weren't 'rebuilding' lives around the world. :rolleyes:

Only number one directly pertains to choices or decisions Blanco made. And even then, she made a choice knowing if she turned over those NG she would not have control over how to best effectively use them. It should not have been a turnover and get help/or don't turnover and not get help scenario. The article I posted indicates how the WH could not function effectively once that requst for turnover was denied. They had no contingency plan in place. Nothing to do but try to find either a loophole in the regulations or a way to work around them. :shake:

The WH can point fingers as much as they want but the fact is they created much of the backlog and beauracracy that hampered their efforts.

Pants
09-10-2005, 07:42 PM
Here's the deal.

No matter who was President, no matter who was in charge of FEMA, no matter who was the Governor of LA, no matter who was the Mayor of NO.......

The fact is this disaster was so huge and so widespread none of the above would be able to handle it such that some poor person wouldn't have to wait 4 or 5 days for rescue.

If you believe otherwise than you are a dumb f**k.

Dude, please. When meme showed you examples from Cuba on how to handle hurricanes of such magnitudes, your ONLY argument was that the poeple were forced to leave no matter what, even if they wanted to stay and that it's not the way it is or should be done in U.S. because it's the commie way.