Ford Forums banner

OT: Why FEMA Was Missing In Action

5K views 52 replies 0 participants last post by  Joe 
G
#1 ·
G
#52 ·
Re: Here's another take on things

Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
> news:esydnZRXI-HsArreRVn-pA@giganews.com:
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Does this mean Bush gets just a little credit? :)

>
>
> Probably not. I doubt that Dubya himself thought of hiring Paulison.


You are a tough crowd. ;)

>><snip>
>>
>>Do you think the rise in insurance rates is Bush's fault? I think
>>the rates are going to rise a lot from the fact that home values
>>have risen too. Especially, in the coastal areas.

>
>
> Michael, I'm not sure what that tiny url pointed to, but I don't think
> it was the page I wanted it to go to.. The real page was the story
> about Bush admitting he'd take blank for everything the feds did
> wrong.


I think that might have been your link from the previous post.

>>><snip>

>>
>>Personally, I think the airport security, the barricades here in DC
>>and other high profile measures are for public consumption and to
>>detour the bungling wanna be terrorists.

>
>
> That's if that stuff is there at all. Security is pretty lax down
> here at FLL.


I just went through Dulles a couple of weeks ago and I thought they were
going to strip search my fat ass! I noticed a big difference between
Dulles and the San Diego airports. At Regan National the security is
very tight. At Dulles or Regan leaving a car unattended in the drop-off
zone for just a couple of minutes will result in a tow.

>>I believe the real war is
>>going on overseas in places we never hear about and through CIA
>>operations. It probably has taken years to rebuild the CIA from the
>>castration it endured through the 1990s. It will probably take
>>several more years to built it up to what it needs to be.

>
>
> If it stays on track.


That is where having a committed president is essential. You can say
many things about Bush but he is committed to killing terrorists.

>><snip>
>>
>>I think this is where Bush doesn't get enough credit. I can't
>>imagine the stress level he has on a day to day basis.

>
>
> Neither can I, nor do I want to. Bush wanted the job, and he got it.
> I sure don't feel sorry for him having to endure his stress level,
> especially while he's out cavorting on his dude ranch. ;)


I'm sure there is a lot of work happening at the ranch we never see or
hear about.

>>I bet he
>>gets reports of terrorist plans that would make our blood run cold.

>
>
> Of course we're playing armchair quarterback here, but I'll bet he's
> told his people that he doesn't want to hear about them. I'll bet he
> just says "deal with it" to them. I think part of his problem is that
> he's too insulated from the real world. His photo-ops show it. I
> think he usually comes off as trying to feel what the regular guy does
> every day as opposed to actually having experienced it. Just doesn't
> quite make it.


I don't think you're giving him enough credit. Fact is he isn't a
regular guy. He's the President. He has to delegate and rely on
subordinates to help develop ideas and carry them out. If anything,
he's shown he has the big balls to make the big decisions. You may not
agree with them but he does make them and doesn't seem to care if it
costs him politically. Invading Iraq in his first term was a ballsy move.

>>We just never hear about them. I think he also knows that once they
>>are here among us we will not be able to stop them. Our society is
>>just too open and free flowing.

>
>
> Now _there's_ the Big Issue. If we don't keep them from breaking the
> door down, it's all over. And the real scary thing is that many of
> them are already in the house. Look at the whole thing with that
> clown Atta. He was prancing around this country for years preparing
> for 9/11. All kinds of security snippets about this guy were floating
> around, but nobody was able to put 2 and 2 together.


IMO, we, as a nation, have to decide how many deaths from terrorist
attacks we can accept in order to keep a certain level of freedom. That
is just the reality of our current situation. This terrorist war is
going to last for decades so we might as well decide that number now and
live with the outcome.

>>I think the real war on terror is
>>one we never hear about and our presence in Iraq helps to fire it
>>more effectively by giving a base of operation right in the middle
>>of our enemies.

>
>
> My take on it is that it's distracting us from the _real_ war on
> terror, which must be a cohesive, united effort by all civilized
> countries on the planet.


It is definitely distracting the terrorists. Every Islamic extremist
yahoo that wants to kill an American is going into Iraq. The trouble is
that many of these countries that haven't been directly hit don't care
about helping us. Look at Spain. They take one hit and fold like a
house of cards. Europe is going to have a hell of a problem down the
road if they don't cooperate with us because they have a huge Muslim
population. GB is just now comprehending the problem they face. There
lax attitude toward dealing with their radical elements have cost them
dearly.

><snip>
>>
>>I think the CIA and various intelligence agencies are still
>>scrambling to be more effective after the beating they took in the
>>1990s. It has to take many, many years to develop the network to
>>infiltrate these groups. I think as time goes on we will become
>>more effective in neutralizing the threats.

>
>
> I agree, and I hope we're right. If we're not, we're in _real_ deep
> doo-doo. As I've said above, we need to get with the rest of the
> civilized world and form a permanent union against these kinds of
> threats. No one nation alone can beat terrorism.


I really believe that the best hope we have for a long term fix is to
bring the Middle East into the modern world. That means developing
democracies and providing economic opportunity for the masses. This is
where I can see the Iraq operation paying off. It is too important for
us to leave that country stable and with a thriving democracy. It would
set a huge precedent for the whole region. I think this is the real
reason Bush invaded and he saw it as being so important for our future
security that he was willing to risk his re-election.

>><snip>
>>
>>I'm sure it will get spread to some degree. As I mentioned earlier,
>>I think increased home values are going to drive increases as much
>>or more than the disasters themselves.

>
>
> Let's compare policies this time next year. :) BTW, those bastids
> dropped my mold coverage.


What? Are they saying you are just too much of a moldy old bastard to
insure? ;)

>><snip>
>>
>>They may be absurd but how else can you compare whether there is
>>improvement?

>
>
> Results. Relief didn't arrive in NO for days. That's unacceptable.
> Even Bush said it.


I think he is taking his lumps but with the poor response locally I
don't see how aid can arrive much faster. Especially, considering the
laws and constitutional obstructions to the Feds making a unilateral
move into a state without their official request. Have you seen where
they are getting ready to prosecute several nursing home and hospital
personnel for abandoning patients and letting them die?

>>IMO, disaster relief is like most everything else when
>>it comes to perfection. It might be easy to reach 90% of the ideal
>>scenario but to gain the last 10% is impossible or improbable.

>
>
> Again, agreed. But we're not talking that last 10% - we're talking
> the first 50% or so.
>
>
>>I
>>don't see how the Feds can get into a disaster area in a big way in
>>shorter than the beginning of the 2nd day. The worse the disaster
>>the harder it will be to response quickly in force. The disaster
>>area this time was over 90,000 square miles. That is a huge number.

>
>
> Right. But it's certainly possible for the feds to get major support
> in the worst areas within those 90,000 sq. miles within 12 hours. I
> think that's a goal that FEMA should strive for. You can bet it would
> be immensely popular.
>
>
>><snip>
>>
>>I don't think we get overseas that fast with aid. The relief the
>>world has provided in Africa alone sometimes takes weeks to get
>>there, if at all. Hell, so much is stolen during the trip that the
>>people that need it probably get just a fraction of what is sent.

>
>
> And there's another big problem. I've heard many stories of people
> wanting to help, but they're either turned away or their help gets
> bungled due to the bureaucracy of the machine.


I doubt this will change anytime soon.

>>If I told you to get a trailer full of relief supplies from your
>>home to New Orleans the right after the hurricane, how long would it
>>take you? Consider all the destruction and debris you would have to
>>deal with. That is what Feds deal with on a massive scale. IMO, if
>>the state and municipalities don't perform or have a good disaster
>>plan and follow it, I don't see how any aid, in quantity, can get
>>there in less than two days.

>
>
> It's simple. They 'copter in troops and supplies, some troops prepare
> for other means of support getting through, others see to the needy.
> Take it from there. The point is that it's possible for the initial
> influx of troops and supplies to get to any point in the continental
> United States within 18 hours. Of course, there has to be a solid
> plan in place for troop deployment combined with stockpiles of medical
> supplies and nourishment. We don't have any of this now.


The trouble is that with virtually no local feedback or support it might
take a day or more for the Feds to determine where the aid is best
placed to be the most effective. I just don't see how the Feds can be
real effective in the first 24-48 hours with zero state and local support.f

>> <snip>
>>
>>I don't think the aid gets there nearly as quick as you think.
>>During the tsunami in December it took days just to assess the
>>damage. I can't imagine the number of people that died because aid
>>didn't arrive in the first couple of days. You may not like Jeb but
>>it looks like he runs a tight ship when it comes to disaster
>>planning.

>
>
> Jeb's a horrible governor, but I've already said he should've been
> considered for FEMA directory (I was actually serious). He's got the
> experience and he knows what works and what doesn't. He knows first
> hand that you've got to immediately commit and act. Bureaucracy, red
> tape, permission from whomever doesn't cut it. The key factor in
> aiding people is decisive immediacy and urgency. Something else
> that's totally lacking with the feds.


I'll let you Floridians be the judge as to his performance as Governor.
I read where Florida officials knew this was going to be a huge
disaster and had rescue crews ready at the western tip of the panhandle
to react immediately after the storm passed. At first they were told
not to engage in rescue operations by the effected states for a certain
number of hours. When that time passed they never asked permission to
engage, they just went in guns blazing. One Florida official was quoted
as saying they didn't ask because they thought they would be told no
again and they just weren't going to let that happen. You gotta love
guys like that. :)

>>Any state located in a hurricane zone should do the same
>>and if they don't the heads of the people responsible should role.
>>The Feds can't mobilize every time a hurricane approaches the coast.
>> It just isn't practical. The locals are already there and are best
>>positioned to help in the first 48 hours.

>
>
> With the exception of the time frame, I fully agree. Within 8 hours
> damage should be assessed and aid deployed.


With local input 8 hours might be enough time but with no input that
might just not be possible. Especially considering this disaster
covered a 90,000 square mile area in a highly populated area.

>><snip>
>>
>>One good thing that should come out of this is a rethink of how the
>>Feds function in a disaster.

>
>
> That's what I've been yammering about. Obviously, the status quo
> doesn't cut it. I think that goes for defense against terrorism as
> well as disaster.


I think you will get your wish this time.

>>I think the states are going to have
>>to give the Feds the right to act unilaterally. We've now seen what
>>happens when a Governor/Mayor fails to perform.

>
>
> I think the whole relationship between local and federal needs to be
> looked at. There are just too many grey areas where there's nothing
> but fingerpointing.


Yeah, but I bet the states bitch about giving the Feds too much
authority and since a Republican is currently president the Dems will be
the most vocal. It is better for them politically to dwell on the lack
of performance than to actually fix the problems and have them not be a
future campaign issue.

>><snip>
>>
>>I agree. Trouble is the Feds just can't "take over". They have to
>>be invited or Bush has to declare martial law or some other drastic
>>measure.
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>This time though it was started by the left. The day after the
>>hurricane hit Joe Kennedy was trashing Bush to no end along with
>>several others. There was no justification for it other than
>>serving their own selfish interests. It helped no one.

>
>
> He's a troublemaker. There are plenty of those guys on both sides.


True but for some reason the Dems seem to put their wackos up front and
center way more than the Republicans. Repubs push their wackos to the
margins where they belong. ;)
 
G
#53 ·
Re: Here's another take on things

"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
news:DuCdnfiWaKA5SrXenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> Joe wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
>> news:esydnZRXI-HsArreRVn-pA@giganews.com:
>>
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Does this mean Bush gets just a little credit? :)

>>
>>
>> Probably not. I doubt that Dubya himself thought of hiring
>> Paulison.

>
> You are a tough crowd. ;)


I'm not a Republican, that's for sure. ;)

>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Do you think the rise in insurance rates is Bush's fault? I think
>>>the rates are going to rise a lot from the fact that home values
>>>have risen too. Especially, in the coastal areas.

>>
>>
>> Michael, I'm not sure what that tiny url pointed to, but I don't
>> think it was the page I wanted it to go to.. The real page was the
>> story about Bush admitting he'd take blank for everything the feds
>> did wrong.

>
> I think that might have been your link from the previous post.


When I clicked it, it was an altogether different web page from the
paper. I think the paper uses the same URL for their dynamic 'headline
of the moment'.

>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Personally, I think the airport security, the barricades here in DC
>>>and other high profile measures are for public consumption and to
>>>detour the bungling wanna be terrorists.

>>
>>
>> That's if that stuff is there at all. Security is pretty lax down
>> here at FLL.

>
> I just went through Dulles a couple of weeks ago and I thought they
> were going to strip search my fat ass! I noticed a big difference
> between Dulles and the San Diego airports. At Regan National the
> security is very tight. At Dulles or Regan leaving a car unattended
> in the drop-off zone for just a couple of minutes will result in a
> tow.


I think there should be a uniform policy across the board for air
travel. Leaving things up to the individuals is asking for another
target IMO. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to determine which
airports had the weakest security.

>>>I believe the real war is
>>>going on overseas in places we never hear about and through CIA
>>>operations. It probably has taken years to rebuild the CIA from
>>>the castration it endured through the 1990s. It will probably take
>>>several more years to built it up to what it needs to be.

>>
>>
>> If it stays on track.

>
> That is where having a committed president is essential. You can
> say many things about Bush but he is committed to killing
> terrorists.


Yes, Bush "stays the course". But that could also be interpreted as
having a narrow field of vision. He may be committed to killing
terrorists, but IMO he's going about it the wrong way. Given his
"stubbornness", there's no point in anyone trying to convince him
otherwise, so we'll just have to wait him out and change course during
the next administration.

>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I think this is where Bush doesn't get enough credit. I can't
>>>imagine the stress level he has on a day to day basis.

>>
>>
>> Neither can I, nor do I want to. Bush wanted the job, and he got
>> it. I sure don't feel sorry for him having to endure his stress
>> level, especially while he's out cavorting on his dude ranch. ;)

>
> I'm sure there is a lot of work happening at the ranch we never see
> or hear about.


If Condi's shoe-shopping trip to NY while Katrina slammed New Orleans is
any indication, I don't know... ;)

>>>I bet he
>>>gets reports of terrorist plans that would make our blood run cold.

>>
>>
>> Of course we're playing armchair quarterback here, but I'll bet
>> he's told his people that he doesn't want to hear about them. I'll
>> bet he just says "deal with it" to them. I think part of his
>> problem is that he's too insulated from the real world. His
>> photo-ops show it. I think he usually comes off as trying to feel
>> what the regular guy does every day as opposed to actually having
>> experienced it. Just doesn't quite make it.

>
> I don't think you're giving him enough credit. Fact is he isn't a
> regular guy. He's the President. He has to delegate and rely on
> subordinates to help develop ideas and carry them out. If anything,
> he's shown he has the big balls to make the big decisions. You may
> not agree with them but he does make them and doesn't seem to care
> if it costs him politically. Invading Iraq in his first term was a
> ballsy move.


Exactly. And I see this quite differently. He's stubborn to the point
that once he's made up his mind on something he "stays the course"
whether it's right or wrong.

>>>We just never hear about them. I think he also knows that once
>>>they are here among us we will not be able to stop them. Our
>>>society is just too open and free flowing.

>>
>>
>> Now _there's_ the Big Issue. If we don't keep them from breaking
>> the door down, it's all over. And the real scary thing is that
>> many of them are already in the house. Look at the whole thing
>> with that clown Atta. He was prancing around this country for
>> years preparing for 9/11. All kinds of security snippets about
>> this guy were floating around, but nobody was able to put 2 and 2
>> together.

>
> IMO, we, as a nation, have to decide how many deaths from terrorist
> attacks we can accept in order to keep a certain level of freedom.
> That is just the reality of our current situation. This terrorist
> war is going to last for decades so we might as well decide that
> number now and live with the outcome.


I don't know if I can ever qualify an "acceptable amount of deaths" to
fit a political agenda.

>>>I think the real war on terror is
>>>one we never hear about and our presence in Iraq helps to fire it
>>>more effectively by giving a base of operation right in the middle
>>>of our enemies.

>>
>>
>> My take on it is that it's distracting us from the _real_ war on
>> terror, which must be a cohesive, united effort by all civilized
>> countries on the planet.

>
> It is definitely distracting the terrorists. Every Islamic
> extremist yahoo that wants to kill an American is going into Iraq.


Right. They know there are Americans there as sitting ducks courtesy of
Bush.

> The trouble is that many of these countries that haven't been
> directly hit don't care about helping us. Look at Spain. They take
> one hit and fold like a house of cards. Europe is going to have a
> hell of a problem down the road if they don't cooperate with us
> because they have a huge Muslim population. GB is just now
> comprehending the problem they face. There lax attitude toward
> dealing with their radical elements have cost them dearly.


Bush himself hasn't exactly been diplomatic in soliciting foreign help.
His stubbornness I've mentioned above is a large factor here IMO.

>><snip>
>>>
>>>I think the CIA and various intelligence agencies are still
>>>scrambling to be more effective after the beating they took in the
>>>1990s. It has to take many, many years to develop the network to
>>>infiltrate these groups. I think as time goes on we will become
>>>more effective in neutralizing the threats.

>>
>>
>> I agree, and I hope we're right. If we're not, we're in _real_
>> deep doo-doo. As I've said above, we need to get with the rest of
>> the civilized world and form a permanent union against these kinds
>> of threats. No one nation alone can beat terrorism.

>
> I really believe that the best hope we have for a long term fix is
> to bring the Middle East into the modern world. That means
> developing democracies and providing economic opportunity for the
> masses. This is where I can see the Iraq operation paying off. It
> is too important for us to leave that country stable and with a
> thriving democracy. It would set a huge precedent for the whole
> region. I think this is the real reason Bush invaded and he saw it
> as being so important for our future security that he was willing to
> risk his re-election.


But the one thing that's not being taken into account is the history and
tradition of these other cultures. We are unique in that our history is
a potpourri of many cultures. Not so with most of these other
countries. If the goal here is trying to "convert" the Middle East to
McDonalds and MTV (ludicrous example to make the point), it's not going
to happen by us sending in troops and trying to establish policy. It's
going to happen over time with each successive generation becoming more
"modernized".

Look at India - they're taking a lot of our outsourced jobs and they're
becoming educated as well as "Americanized" as a result. But it's
happening from within, not from without.

>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I'm sure it will get spread to some degree. As I mentioned
>>>earlier, I think increased home values are going to drive increases
>>>as much or more than the disasters themselves.

>>
>>
>> Let's compare policies this time next year. :) BTW, those bastids
>> dropped my mold coverage.

>
> What? Are they saying you are just too much of a moldy old bastard
> to insure? ;)


Wow, that's got to be it!

>>><snip>
>>>
>>>They may be absurd but how else can you compare whether there is
>>>improvement?

>>
>>
>> Results. Relief didn't arrive in NO for days. That's
>> unacceptable. Even Bush said it.

>
> I think he is taking his lumps but with the poor response locally I
> don't see how aid can arrive much faster. Especially, considering
> the laws and constitutional obstructions to the Feds making a
> unilateral move into a state without their official request. Have
> you seen where they are getting ready to prosecute several nursing
> home and hospital personnel for abandoning patients and letting them
> die?


Yes, and those bastards should fry. I think the point here isn't so
much as to lay blame on one side or the other (locals vs. feds) - it's
to come up with policies and actions that work. The status quo doesn't
IMO.

>>>IMO, disaster relief is like most everything else when
>>>it comes to perfection. It might be easy to reach 90% of the ideal
>>>scenario but to gain the last 10% is impossible or improbable.

>>
>>
>> Again, agreed. But we're not talking that last 10% - we're talking
>> the first 50% or so.
>>
>>
>>>I
>>>don't see how the Feds can get into a disaster area in a big way in
>>>shorter than the beginning of the 2nd day. The worse the disaster
>>>the harder it will be to response quickly in force. The disaster
>>>area this time was over 90,000 square miles. That is a huge
>>>number.

>>
>>
>> Right. But it's certainly possible for the feds to get major
>> support in the worst areas within those 90,000 sq. miles within 12
>> hours. I think that's a goal that FEMA should strive for. You can
>> bet it would be immensely popular.
>>
>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I don't think we get overseas that fast with aid. The relief the
>>>world has provided in Africa alone sometimes takes weeks to get
>>>there, if at all. Hell, so much is stolen during the trip that the
>>>people that need it probably get just a fraction of what is sent.

>>
>>
>> And there's another big problem. I've heard many stories of people
>> wanting to help, but they're either turned away or their help gets
>> bungled due to the bureaucracy of the machine.

>
> I doubt this will change anytime soon.


It's an example of the wasteful bureaucratic political machine...

>>>If I told you to get a trailer full of relief supplies from your
>>>home to New Orleans the right after the hurricane, how long would
>>>it take you? Consider all the destruction and debris you would
>>>have to deal with. That is what Feds deal with on a massive scale.
>>> IMO, if the state and municipalities don't perform or have a good
>>>disaster plan and follow it, I don't see how any aid, in quantity,
>>>can get there in less than two days.

>>
>>
>> It's simple. They 'copter in troops and supplies, some troops
>> prepare for other means of support getting through, others see to
>> the needy. Take it from there. The point is that it's possible
>> for the initial influx of troops and supplies to get to any point
>> in the continental United States within 18 hours. Of course, there
>> has to be a solid plan in place for troop deployment combined with
>> stockpiles of medical supplies and nourishment. We don't have any
>> of this now.

>
> The trouble is that with virtually no local feedback or support it
> might take a day or more for the Feds to determine where the aid is
> best placed to be the most effective. I just don't see how the Feds
> can be real effective in the first 24-48 hours with zero state and
> local support.f
>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>I don't think the aid gets there nearly as quick as you think.
>>>During the tsunami in December it took days just to assess the
>>>damage. I can't imagine the number of people that died because aid
>>>didn't arrive in the first couple of days. You may not like Jeb
>>>but it looks like he runs a tight ship when it comes to disaster
>>>planning.

>>
>>
>> Jeb's a horrible governor, but I've already said he should've been
>> considered for FEMA directory (I was actually serious). He's got
>> the experience and he knows what works and what doesn't. He knows
>> first hand that you've got to immediately commit and act.
>> Bureaucracy, red tape, permission from whomever doesn't cut it.
>> The key factor in aiding people is decisive immediacy and urgency.
>> Something else that's totally lacking with the feds.

>
> I'll let you Floridians be the judge as to his performance as
> Governor.


LOL! Thanks.

> I read where Florida officials knew this was going to be a huge
> disaster and had rescue crews ready at the western tip of the
> panhandle to react immediately after the storm passed. At first
> they were told not to engage in rescue operations by the effected
> states for a certain number of hours. When that time passed they
> never asked permission to engage, they just went in guns blazing.
> One Florida official was quoted as saying they didn't ask because
> they thought they would be told no again and they just weren't going
> to let that happen. You gotta love guys like that. :)


Indeed. Basically, Floridians as a whole know what it's like to go
through this crap. IMO those guys did the right thing - they said the
hell with "protocol" and bureaucracy and simply tried to save lives.
This is the crux of what both the feds and locals need to remember.
When policy gets in the way of real aid, it's time to change policy.

>>>Any state located in a hurricane zone should do the same
>>>and if they don't the heads of the people responsible should role.
>>>The Feds can't mobilize every time a hurricane approaches the
>>>coast.
>>> It just isn't practical. The locals are already there and are
>>> best
>>>positioned to help in the first 48 hours.

>>
>>
>> With the exception of the time frame, I fully agree. Within 8
>> hours damage should be assessed and aid deployed.

>
> With local input 8 hours might be enough time but with no input that
> might just not be possible. Especially considering this disaster
> covered a 90,000 square mile area in a highly populated area.
>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>One good thing that should come out of this is a rethink of how the
>>>Feds function in a disaster.

>>
>>
>> That's what I've been yammering about. Obviously, the status quo
>> doesn't cut it. I think that goes for defense against terrorism as
>> well as disaster.

>
> I think you will get your wish this time.
>
>>>I think the states are going to have
>>>to give the Feds the right to act unilaterally. We've now seen
>>>what happens when a Governor/Mayor fails to perform.

>>
>>
>> I think the whole relationship between local and federal needs to
>> be looked at. There are just too many grey areas where there's
>> nothing but fingerpointing.

>
> Yeah, but I bet the states bitch about giving the Feds too much
> authority and since a Republican is currently president the Dems
> will be the most vocal. It is better for them politically to dwell
> on the lack of performance than to actually fix the problems and
> have them not be a future campaign issue.


With regards to saving lives, as soon as politics gets in the way of
action, then the politicians need to be gone IMO. I think that's why
this whole flap is so prevalent in the media.

>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I agree. Trouble is the Feds just can't "take over". They have to
>>>be invited or Bush has to declare martial law or some other drastic
>>>measure.
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>This time though it was started by the left. The day after the
>>>hurricane hit Joe Kennedy was trashing Bush to no end along with
>>>several others. There was no justification for it other than
>>>serving their own selfish interests. It helped no one.

>>
>>
>> He's a troublemaker. There are plenty of those guys on both sides.

>
> True but for some reason the Dems seem to put their wackos up front
> and center way more than the Republicans. Repubs push their wackos
> to the margins where they belong. ;)


LOL! And that's one of the reasons why I'm a registered Independent.
;)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top