OT: Why FEMA Was Missing In Action

As reported on CNN and very accidetally seen by me real late at night last week, it has been discovered that he lied on his resume. Oops!!

If you weren't a t> > snipped-for-privacy@here.com wrote:

Yeah, sure. Come down here and say the things you did about Americans in a bar and I would be the least of your worries. I guess us ugly, war mongering Americans aren't the only ones that readily resort to violence? Maybe you are more like us than you care to admit. ;)

I heard he "exaggerated". I wonder if the guy that OK'ed his credentials was the same one the gave Bernard Kerik a thumbs up for Secretary of Homeland Security? ;)

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

I heard "lied" (one of the very few times I'll agree with WF). Didn't catch the details, but I believe it had something to do with a position he held that was more like an internship as opposed to some kind of person of authority, which was how he portrayed himself.

Now why didn't Dubya check out these guys (Brown and Kerik) more thoroughly? There's your "Oops". ;)

I'm sure back ground checks are one of those things that are delegated. If hiring people was a perfect process then no one would ever have to be fired. ;) One thing I will give Bush some credit on is that he will say he made a mistake if he really believes he or his administration screwed up. He hasn't tried to paint over the Feds response to Katrina. I bet there was some major ass chewing going on in the background.

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news:Y5udneNq6c-A snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

I sense backpedaling...

What?!?!?!? Michael, I'm going to call you to the carpet on this one. Bush is infamous for "never having made a mistake". Remember the debates with Kerry? Katrina is the _first_ time Bush has admitted to actually making some kind of mistake at all. And he didn't even call it a "mistake".

No, but he used every opportunity for spin with his photo ops.

BTW, I read today (in one of those "suspect papers") that the National Guard's slow response in NO was due in part to all the Guard personnel deployed in Iraq. I'd still like to know why the National Guard (can someone plese define the term 'National'?) is in another country halfway around the world...

WOOHOOO!!!!!!! LOL

From what I caught on CNN, exagerated would probably be a better term, but for use as a job application, he still lied. If he hasn't been axed already, they Shirley he will be soon.

I said if he REALLY BELIEVES he made a mistake. The things you think are mistakes he may not believe them to be mistakes. Also, NOBODY will admit to a mistake in a debate. Remember Kerry dancing around about his stances on the Iraq war? He was all over the place on a daily basis. He took so many positions that one of them had to be a mistake but you never heard him admit to it. ;)

All politicians use photo ops. Actually, I think Bush seeks them out far less than most politicians. Case in point is his numerous meetings with military casualties and their family members.

Here are a couple of links to the Army National Guard web site that talks about the function of the Guard:

The LA National Guard has about 11,500 members of which around 3,000 of them are in Iraq. They have over 8,000 members still in the state. I remember reading the Governor only had about 400 Guard members in New Orleans the day after the Hurricane. This isn't meant to be an excuse for the Feds but I think they thought LA and NO would respond more like Florida does during a hurricane on a state and local level. When they didn't it caught them off guard. I think no one fathomed the lack of preparedness on the part of the state and City. This disaster was like the perfect storm occurring. Also, I find it interesting that Mississippi seems to have had no major problems with their Guard units and the State's response seems to have been very good. One thing Barbour did right after the hurricane was to exert control over looting which I think helped stabilize things quickly there. Also, I think they took the brunt of the storm and have more damage than NO. NO biggest problem is the flooding from breached levies. Mississippi's coastline is just devastated. If you want to see some interesting satellite images go to Google Earth and look at the Gulf coast east of NO.

There are also major legal implications for Bush sending in the Feds (FEMA and the military) without Blanco's official permission. He would have had to use the "Insurrection Act" which was not intended for natural disasters. Plus, I would almost guarantee that if he had steam rolled Blanco the Democrats would have went nuts. IMO, the Feds and states need to rewrite the law to remedy the problem for the future natural disasters.

Also, Bush was hamstrung by the Posse Comitatus Act (Section 1385 of Title 18, United States Code (USC)). It states:

?Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.?

Tell me the Dems wouldn't have loved to use this against Bush had he acted illegally. Here is another interesting link:

The fact is that FEMA doesn't have the manpower to respond to a large scale natural disaster on their own. They typically rely on the National Guard and local authorities for on-the-ground muscle. In LA that didn't exist and getting Federal military support was problematic. One good thing I'm hearing and reading is the loss of life won't be nearly as bad as the Mayor of NO predicted.

They won't string him up from the highest tree. He will just fade away until one day some asks "What happened to Brown?" Then everyone will just shrug their shoulders and that will be the end of it.

Heh....Kerry and the Iraq war...reminds me of that old adage..."Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

As for the Kerik/Brown thing...I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the president is going to personally review/screen all the resumes for appointees. That's like expecting the CEO of GE to personally review the resume of every new hire....That stuff gets delegated out and he'll get a pile of a few resumes at the end for key positions that will have already been vetted by subordinates. Do you honestly think the president is going to personally check up on references? That whole "scandal" was a joke.

Cheers,

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Since I don't have the time to respond point by point, I'll just say a couple things:

a) Saying that "mistakes" aren't mistakes if you don't think they're mistakes is ridiculous IMO. By that token, Dubya's nuts. ;)

b) If FEMA doesn't have the manpower to respond to a large scale natural disaster, then why do they exist? Sure, they'll use other branches of the government, but those entites also have to be ready for deployment in the event of a national disaster.

c) It is indeed good that the death count is smaller than expected at this point. Loss of life is never a good thing.

I don't have the time to go point by point either. The bottom line is that there is LOTS of blame to go around, both at the federal level and the state and local level. This was also a natural disaster of a proportion that hasn't been seen in this country in several lifetimes. FEMA wasn't really designed to shoulder that kind of burden. Their job is to ASSIST state and local governments, not to roll in and take charge. Also, I think its unfair to heap blame on the feds because the state and local officials have consistently neglected to prepare and plan for such a contingency for decades.

If I may, let me try to make an analogy. If you have an airline, are you going to buy enough planes so that there are enough seats to carry every potential passenger on the busiest 2 days of the year or do you buy a smaller number of planes (much smaller) to handle the load typical of the other 363 days a year? The difference in operating costs is staggering.

Lastly, I find it repulsive that politicians from both parties are trying to posture for political advantage out of this natural disaster.

Cheers,

You're assuming he made a mistake. Typically, if a person feels they made no mistake then they won't admit to making it. Just because one group of people think a mistake was made doesn't necessarily make it true or correct. IMO, too meant people are busy grinding political axes to really know the truth on most things. Also, in the current political climate, many times it does no good to admit to a mistake. What good does it do for Bush to fall on a sword now? It would just give his opponents more ammo to shoot at him. It wouldn't change anything. Plus, he has already admitted the Feds could have done better. What more do you want from him at this point? The only reason the Democrats and the Old Media want more from him is so they can try to damage him, and the Republicans, politically.

FEMA doesn't, and can't, have the manpower to be a sole responder to a disaster. In reality, they are really more of a coordinator/facilitating agency. For them to have the people and equipment in place to solely deal with a disaster like Katrina would be a huge waste of resources and money. I would also be redundant. IMO, FEMA was screwed when the state National Guard and local police/firemen failed to react per the in-place disaster plans. They then had to unexpectedly rely on the regular military and it took time to mobilize them. Actually, the Federal response the Katrina might be better than it was th Andrew and Hugo.

Indeed.

Ritz wrote in news:mSeVe.5374$ snipped-for-privacy@fe11.lga:

Probably. We'll see over time.

Hurricane Andrew was certainly no picnic. Short memory, or do you live up north?

Sounds like a partial contradiction to your second sentence. I think it's perfectly fair to heap blame on the feds. They screwed up again. We've seen it first hand here in Florida for years now.

I get the analogy, but we're talking about human lives and not just optional transportation. FEMA has been a joke for years. They're just now getting the national attention they deserve.

Indeed. Personally, I thought it was pretty sickening to see Bush fly down to NO and tell everybody to hang in there, then he up and leaves.

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

LOL! Yes, I am. I'll go so far as to say I think he's made quite a few of them. :)

Michael, I think this is all spin.

Seriously? I want him to bring all our troops home, get a decent energy policy together, and make his lil' bro Jebbie director of FEMA.

Yeah, maybe some of them do. But I really think America in general is getting tired of BushSpin. What will Dubya be truly remembered for in history?

Then why the hell are they under Homeland Security? We're not secure at all. We're no more secure now then the day before or after 9/11, and we're no more prepared for a terrorist attack on our soil, either. IMO, of course.

Then why are all the insurance companies ramping up? Guess what's going to happen to everybody's premiums. Up until Katrina, it was mostly Florida that got hit with insurance surcharges, decreased coverages, and dropped policies. Now, it's going to be national.

Here's one of the key points in that story:

"...For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three..."

Personally, I think the response to Andrew was a joke, and the response to Katrina isn't much better. Three days to help with a disaster on your own soil is downright shameful.

I guess my whole point throughout all these posts and threads is that in a national disaster, whether it's from a natural occurence like a hurricane or from a terrorist attack, we as a country should be able to start truly helping victims on our own soil within 18 hours. In this day and age, the only reason why we can't/won't has nothing to do with ability. It has everything to do with politics and selfishness, and that's a damn shame.

:)

One man's spin is another man's logical well thought out response. ;)

I have gathered from your posts that you don't care for him. ;) The political rancor has gotten so bad that it really doesn't matter what he does because the people that don't like him will never give him credit, even if he deserves it. Heck, even though I didn't like Clinton I gave him credit for quite a few things I felt he did right.

Personally, I think W. will fair well in the history books. I see a lot of parallels between him and Regan in how they were treated while in office. With hind sight I think most people see Regan in a much more positive light than when he was president. I think it could very well be the same with Bush. It will take 20-25 years to really know the effects of the policies he has promoted. Only then can he really be judged. If he can get through his second term without another terrorist attack within our borders then I think he will be viewed quite favorably.

I think we are much safer today than before 9-11 regarding a terrorist attack. I think what has made a difference isn't the security measures you can see but the covert activities we don't see. Fact is anyone looking for the government to 100% guarantee their safety is whistling past the graveyard. If we're looking for anywhere near that level of security from terrorism then we had better be prepared to loose most of our freedoms, IMO. It's easy to complain about what the government does or doesn't do but I wonder if anyone complaining could do a better job themselves and not receive criticism from someone. If you asked me on

9-11-2001 what I thought the chance of another attack would be in the next four years I would have said 99%. We haven't had another on our soil up to now and I don't think that is due to dumb luck.

I assume the price of insurance will go up with the risk they assess. Personally, I think someone living within a mile of the ocean should know they are at a much elevated risk to having their house blown away than a person in a trailer in West Virginia. Consequently, they should pay more for their insurance than the guy living in Montana. Should these people decide to rebuild there homes where they were then they shouldn't complain about high insurance rates. It is people like them that make them high.

Taking that article at face value it looks like FEMA has improved its response time by 40%. Maybe it still isn't what you consider optimal but it is a substantial improvement. I can think of many things that would effect the Feds ability to respond to a disaster. Maybe it just isn't possible to respond much faster than 1-2 days from a logistics standpoint. Trying to mobilize a massive amount of equipment, personnel and supplies from one area of the country to another is probably more complicated than either of us know. Add to this the local infrastructure being obliterated (especially bridges) and the need to clear houses, debris, mud etc. from the roads and getting aid to the needy in quantity could be very difficult and time consuming. To expect the Feds to have given every victim three hots and a cot the day after the hurricane blew through is just plain unrealistic, IMO.

I think we have tricked ourselves into thinking the government (at all levels) can perform miracles. To get aid anywhere in substantial quantities in 18 hours we would need to have personnel, supplies, transportation standing at ready 100% of the time. I doubt this would be feasible. IMO, anyone living in a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, or terrorism (I include myself in this one) zone had better be prepared to be their own first responder. If you are lucky enough to get a warning a disaster is coming then got the hell out of Dodge.

The thing that really disgusts me about this disaster is the speed that the Democrats/liberals started using it to their political advantage. It took them an hour to use it in the first hearing today for Robertson's confirmation. What the hell does his nomination have to do with the hurricane victims? Also, they have tried to make it a race issue by saying Bush doesn't care about blacks! Is it just me or do you find it disgusting too?

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Fair enough. :)

IMO Jebbie's a lousy governor, but he's got a helluva lot of disaster experience. Plus he speaks Spanish.

Seriously though, Paulison (our new FEMA director) should be great in the position. He's got plenty of experience, as he's been dealing with all kinds of messes down here since Andrew.

Well, check this out:

Just saw it tonight.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. :)

I sure hope so, because the things we do see apparently don't work too well. This goes for everything from natural disasters to screening luggage at an airport.

Agreed. That level of "safety" is ludicrous. As you say, there's a very delicate balance between civil rights and intrusion/erosion of those rights in the name of 'security'.

I think a large part of it is. Unless our intelligence and covert action groups (for lack of a better term) have gone a miraculous transformation in the last few years, I think we're still kind of in deep doo-doo.

But the numbers are such that the premiums have to be spread nationally, or nobody will be able to afford property 5 miles within any beach. Just like with fuel prices, I think everybody will be sharing the costs of these kinds of disasters in their insurance policies.

To me these kinds of comparisons are absurd. Only the percentage of improvement is considered, not the actual result. It totally removes the humanity.

Sorry, but I simply don't agree. We've deployed forces overseas to other countries and provided aid quicker than we've seen in this country.

You're right in that there are factors we're not aware of. But simply put, if we can deploy troops and deliver aid around the world in a timely fashion, why not in our own country even quicker? I think this is the question that a lot of people have been asking.

I think that's in place right now. I just don't think it exists for a "national disaster". Again, it's the agenda that's the problem.

Of course. But where to go and how to get there? Have you ever had to evacuate for a hurricane? Faggedaboudit. If you're not out within the first few hours, you're toast. And at that point, you're correct

- the locals need to have effective, working plans to deal with that stuff. But once that starts, the feds need to come in and take over. There's way too much bureacracy at all levels right now.

Indeed. But the horror is bipartisan. Nobody's exempt in their agendas.