Welcome Guest - Sign Up today
Welcome Guest - Sign Up today

Announcement

Collapse

This forum section is heavily moderated. Please click here to view our Dockside Chat posting policies.

In order to maintain the friendly, all-inclusive, family-oriented environment of the iboats.com Forums, this non-boating discussion area will be heavily moderated. Topics such as politics, religion, and social controversy will be removed as will jokes and other humor which single out any specific group (gender, religion, race, etc).
See more
See less

President needs to clean house

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: President needs to clean house

    Sorry, my bad, I take it back that is really one of my big peeves and am sure others will want to kill me over it. Course it is what you would expect from a southern boy.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: President needs to clean house

      Look by the time this is over, there better be some people on trial for manslaughter... Anything less is a whitewash.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: President needs to clean house

        Well, there is one thing that I can't imagine anyone arguing with:That it is very clear that this country is not prepared to deal with a major catastophe.HSC was supposed to change that. It didn't work.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: President needs to clean house

          Ralph, what the H are you trying to say?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: President needs to clean house

            IMO investigations, focus groups, after action reviews, all these "tools" to establish blame are a plague. the afore mentioned actions have become a HUGE waste of resources. And friggen monies best used to pay for reconstruction of housing and facilities that will be costing real monies. Stop the foolish waste.Were the above mentioned actions, or "tools of corrective review" used appropriately, errors and shortcomings would be discovered. And at that point solutions could be implemented. The process should be unbiased, expedient, and thorough. And at a financial cost that is value added. But we the citizenry allow this behavior to continue as well as escalate ever more without any accountability of our elected officials as well as the media who proportionately provide us with the "information" that we base our opinions on.
            "88"

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: President needs to clean house

              It appears that there was criminal neglect here. When you have a reckless disregard for human life and people die, you go to jail. Now, I can show you what things I think constitute that if you'd like... but I'm not a lawyer. I only play one on the Internet

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: President needs to clean house

                and oh yea, "the President should Clean House"...dude, it is yours and mine responsibility to clean the house by electing people both locally as well as higher offices who will have appointees who are qualified. The typical BS position of many is that the FED or GOV the MAN should do this and that. BS my friend....and the ramble goes on.......
                "88"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: President needs to clean house

                  pjc, Amen broSince this thread was a troll to begin with here goes, and I'm not some southen boy
                  But we the citizenry allow this behavior to continue as well as escalate ever more without any accountability of our elected officials as well as the media who proportionately provide us with the "information" that we base our opinions on.
                  Well said. Here in the "progressive" state of WI we have 4 legislators coming to trial on Felony charges while in office. One was cocky enough to have run for re-election last year and the sad part is people voted for this idiot. We have a sitting Gov. who took in 2 million in campaign contributions from a sovereign nation and a bribe of 10,000 for a state contract. But when pressed sheeple will still vote because somebody will only ask them,"Are you a Repub or Dem"? jtexas, I will agree with you on the civil war.The south refused to come to Congress in 1860 and Lincoln(Repub)declared martial law, which by the way has never been recinded by any president since. This allowed him in 1863 to march 20,000 Federal troops into New York city and slaughter the citizenery at will for resisting the unlawful draft.This is always on the minds of states govenors when the feds come in, the loss of complete control of "states rights". I have a feeling Gov.Blanco didn't go to public skool or else she had a smart granpa.The idea of a "Republic" no longer exists and the idea that we have a constitution in effect is garbage. How can anybody explain how we, citizens with rights guaranteeded by a const. give up those rights via "the Patriot Act 1 and 2"? When we give up our const. rights doesn't this require a 2/3 votes of the states? Notice how us as citizens are subject now to a tribunial, not a jury of our peers?As for the "states militia", they sold out in the early 1900's because of lack of funding. The Feds promised money but in exchange ****ed the "militia" to do anything the Feds want. Hence the La Guard and their equipment are thousands of miles away. The idea that the "guard" was to protect the state no longer exists. Look at Arizona and the illegal problem. Who do we blame? The Feds? The "guard" could do a bang up job with the problem but who's holding em back? Your bros the Feds. Remember all the government appointments put on hold because of illegal nannies?We as citizens have sold our souls and our hard earned cash to a god that will dump us in a heart beat. This god is big gubbermint.The thought of personel responsibility no longer exists. "Even though I missed da bus somebody will come back for my butt, feed me and give me debit cards. We as a nation are unprepared period for what's coming, a suitcase nuke bomb in say Chicago.This hurricance and the recent massive power outage in the northeast are just rehearsals of what to expect in the future. Are you ready?As others have said in other posts, I want to see the bodies. Maybe that will wake up the sheeple into realizing that they've been sold out.Do we want the Feds to come in and say "you must rebuild public housing" to perpetuate the "welfare state"? I think not but then we've already sold our souls to lies and corruption long ago.We sheeple are more concerned as to who's playing on Monday night football/Nascar on Sunday and having a 12'r in the fridge than what our gubbermint is doing to them. Playcated and sedated, just where they want you. Next week Katrina will be a passing thought to all but a few.Cynical? no I see it as being a realist

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: President needs to clean house

                    Sorry, WildBill. I don't buy your pessimism. Go dig a bomb shelter, I have faith in the folks down there.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: President needs to clean house

                      Some Urge Greater Use of Troops in Major DisastersBy Bradley GrahamWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, September 9, 2005; A15The breakdown of local and state agencies that tried to respond to Hurricane Katrina has spurred fresh debate about whether disasters of such magnitude ought to be turned over to the U.S. military and other federal authorities to manage at the outset.National plans developed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks rest on the notion that police, fire and other emergency groups are best positioned to serve as first responders. Federal agencies are supposed to function as backup to state and local ones, and military forces are meant to play a largely supporting role to civilian authorities.But Katrina showed what can happen when the foundation of this organizational structure is quickly overwhelmed and disintegrates, according to government officials and independent analysts."The would-be first responders at the state and local level were themselves victims in very large numbers," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a news conference this week. As a result, "we had a situation that was distinctly different than in past events of this type."Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials this week have resisted entering a public discussion of alternative approaches, insisting that the focus stay for now on cleaning up after Katrina. President Bush and congressional leaders have promised investigations into what went wrong in the response to the hurricane's devastation.But Rumsfeld said the government will likely address again the question of "lead responsibility" for the Defense Department in disaster response. He noted that the issue is critical not only in responding to a natural catastrophe but also to a terrorist attack, because reliance on local authorities has been the basis of emergency planning in both cases.Some homeland defense specialists have argued since Katrina struck that national plans must be revised to provide for a bigger and faster federalized effort, particularly in large-scale disasters."Only the federal government can mobilize a national response to catastrophic disasters," said James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "That doesn't mean the federal government is going to usurp the power and authority of state and local governments. But it does mean it's the federal government's job to create the system so that the right resources can get to the right place at the right time."There is no guarantee a greater federal role would improve response. Both the Pentagon and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have been widely faulted for not grasping quickly enough the scope of Katrina's damage and not committing sufficient people, supplies and equipment early on.Historically, practical as well as legal considerations have favored relying on leadership at the grass-roots level."The police and fire departments and local emergency-service people are, by definition, the first ones on the scene," said H.K. Park, a former defense official who worked on homeland security issues during the Clinton administration. "And they have the advantage of knowing their communities."There's also a legal dimension," he added, "involving states' rights versus federal rights."Further, military forces remain constrained from a domestic law enforcement role by the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. Though the Pentagon has committed more than 8,000 active-duty Army and Marine troops and about 10,000 sailors, it has made it clear that these forces will not perform police functions.National Guard troops, now numbering more than 46,000, constitute a far larger share of the military presence in the disaster area. They bring two main advantages. First, they possess medical, engineering, communication and logistical skills required in relief work. Second, Guard units, when operating under the command of state governors, are not limited by Posse Comitatus.Any move to assign greater responsibility to the Pentagon for domestic emergency management is likely to face resistance, particularly since the armed forces are already strained by the conflict in Iraq. Commanders remain sensitive to the notion of U.S. troops becoming an occupying force in their own country.When Guard forces arrived in New Orleans late last week, Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is overseeing military operations in the region, ordered them to point their rifles down to reinforce the message they had come to provide assistance, not occupy the city.Politically, too, the idea of an enhanced federal role may be a hard sell to some local and state officials if it means diminishing their authority. Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco resisted a Bush administration effort last week to exert federal control over all local police and state National Guard units.Some experts also contend that an attempt to federalize a relief effort could backfire, resulting in less flexibility rather than more."You don't want to federalize the Guard," Park warned. "When Guard forces are controlled by the governor, they can engage in law enforcement duties. When federalized, they are subject to Posse Comitatus."But Carafano and others argue that major disasters require a different approach, with only the federal government able to provide the resources and coordination necessary to manage a catastrophic event.The problem, Carafano said, is that officials at all levels of government have appeared more inclined to focus on preparing for smaller disasters. As a result, much of the increased funding for emergency-response activities in recent years has gone toward equipment useful to local agencies, such as new fire trucks or protective fencing, that are of little value when overwhelming disasters strike."The money should have gone towards the things that enable local and state authorities to plug into a national system -- things like communications, emergency operations centers, training," he said. "All of these would have enabled the mayor of New Orleans to better communicate his needs." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801862_pf.html

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: President needs to clean house

                        Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop AidBy ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKERWASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers on Wednesday, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should seize control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor so that active-duty combat troops could be sent to enforce order.For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge the president to take command of the effort by invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. 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.This debate over federal versus state control of the military relief mission was triggered as officials began to realize that Hurricane Katrina exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior homeland security officials, the hurricane proved to them the failure of their plan to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated and unable to act quickly until reinforcements arrive on the scene.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 complicated questions involving federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis. Decision makers in Washington felt certain that Governor Blanco would have resisted active-duty combat forces entering her state but not under her command. While 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," Governor Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Tuesday, when New Orleans flooded. In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that. I thought that I had requested everything they had," she said. "We were living in a war zone by then." The governor illustrated her stance when, overnight Friday, she 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 Guard.Also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than National Guard soldiers. 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 that 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg in North Carolina on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.But the call never came, in part because military officials believed National Guard troops would get there faster and because administration civilians were worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters, administration officials said. To assist state officials, Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the director of operations for the military's Joint Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials in advance of an approaching hurricane. The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time the hurricane 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 a number of 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 lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to assist local authorities. 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 did possess 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, according to administration officials. 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 that deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Governor Blanco said her state troops were missed. "Over the last year we have had about 5,000 out, at one time," Governor Blanco 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. Homeland Security officials say that the experience with 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 homeland security, said.Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested the 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 should 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 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. And that's one in which we are using the military, still within the framework of the law, to come in and really handle the evacuation, handle all of the associated elements. And that, of course, frees the National Guard up to do a security mission."Mr. McHale, while agreeing with the problem, offered different remedies. "It is foreseeable to envision a catastrophic explosion that would kill virtually every police officer within miles of the attack," he said. "Therefore we are going to have to reexamine our ability to back-fill first responder capabilities that may be degraded or destroyed during the initial event."He continued, "What we now have to look toward is perhaps a regional capability, probably within the civilian sector, that can be deployed to a city when that city's infrastructure and first responder capability has been destroyed by the event itself." Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported from Washington, and Eric Lipton from Baton Rouge, La., for this article. David Johnston contributed reportinghttp://nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?ei=5094&en=29839ee3ffe8c2ba&hp=&ex =1126238400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&pagewanted=p rint&adxnnlx=1126233967-4 9CSCLXvlaWStbJKHeNzAA

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: President needs to clean house

                          Originally posted by BoatBuoy: I'm sure glad he's in command. We'd have a catastrophe if he wasn't.
                          do I detect a note of sarcasm? check out Bush Prepares Hurricane Relief Effort (ABC News) this was published before katrina made landfall
                          CRAWFORD, Texas Aug 28, 2005 — President Bush, as he readied the federal government for a massive relief effort, on Sunday urged people in the path of Hurricane Katrina to forget anything but their safety and move to higher ground as instructed. ...With forecasters warning of a category five storm, the president made sure the federal response would not be delayed by already declaring emergencies in Mississippi, Florida and Alabama just hours after a similar declaration for Louisiana. ...Working from his Texas ranch, Bush participated via videoconference in a large meeting of federal, state and local disaster management officials preparing for the storm's onslaught. Separately, he spoke by phone with the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. ...In Washington, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was coordinating relief efforts sending water, food and other supplies to staging centers in the Southeast. FEMA was moving supplies from logistics centers in Atlanta and Denton, Texas, to areas closer to where authorities believe the storm will create a need, spokeswoman Nicol Andrews said.
                          See there? Bush done good! and I mean that most sincerely.Do I still think he could of gone sooner? Yes. He could have put on waders & a flack jacket & strolled down Bourbon Street with a strawberry daquiri in one hand & a parasol in the other. Either that or else a meeting & press conference with the Governor in Baton Rouge; a gesture that says "these Americans are important...[yada yada yada standard political speech]" that would trump the race card (which was pretty darn predictable, IMHO). But don't mention Trent Lott's beach house (that was a faux pax if you ask me).Am I a bushbasher? Don't feel like one, more like a Monday morning quarterback. Hope that don't hurt yall's feelings.
                          It's all about the tools.

                          "If the ocean is glass flat and the sun is shining, you open up the special memory compartment of your brain and start recording the smells, sounds, sights and feelings." -- Philster

                          "Poets talk about 'spots of time,' but it is really fishermen who experience eternity compressed into a moment. No one can tell what a spot of time is until suddenly the whole world is a fish and the fish is gone. I shall remember that son of a b**** forever." -- N. Maclean

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: President needs to clean house

                            Already got the bomb shelter, it's an undergound concrete 2500 gal. water cistren under an addition to my house. Haven't got the air filtration thing down yet. Works great for a tornado shelter.So have we established FEMA's role in when they just come bustin in? Or what equipment,personel they would need to respond to major events. Just think of the mobile caravan circling the Southeast during hurricane season. Like the talk about how tall the levees should have been, at what costs are we willng spend for this reactionary rescue force? The most cost effective plan would be in the Guard of each state having the equipment,personel and training to react. But this can't happen when they're thousands of miles away.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: President needs to clean house

                              Suggestion, go to bed and sleep! The stress has been adding up big time, do yourself a favor and hit the pillow. At the rate that you folks are talking about it, everyone will be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Seriously.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Sign up today
                                Re: President needs to clean house

                                Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Governor Blanco said her state troops were missed
                                Anybody know when they deploy over to Iraq do they take the most highly trained, best equiped guard troopers or is it a mix of greenheads, trained personel and old farts like me that need a nap in the afternoon? No offense to the older population implied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X