You're the quintessential idiot. Even bush has admitted that his
administration dropped the ball -- and there is no way any American city
can ever be prepared or repair it self after being wiped out.
In <ljhei1h5g0lpcj0m69esbntd2plcgrbks4@4ax.com>, on 09/13/2005
at 04:45 PM, Matt Osborn said:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:47:27 GMT, "The Tutor" <Tutors@aol.com> wrote:
<Matt Osborn> wrote in message news:0ohci11fj6artah1rmmb68m7a61mp3dj6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:04:35 GMT, "The Tutor" <Tutors@aol.com> wrote:
Why did FEMA chief Michael Brown get the boot then?
Politics is the only reason I could find. FEMA stocked the Superdome
with food and water before the hurricane struck and after the
hurricane struck. Louisiana's contribution was limited to throwing
road blocks into the path of the American Red Cross.
Politics? Which political entity would that be? Where did you find that reason?
Anyone else agree with this?
The Republicans canned Brown because he was drawing heat. Just like
Bush and Roberts ran away from the Federalist Society when Roberts
appeared on a member list.
Brown got canned because he was drawing heat? Drawing heat for what?
He got sacrificed by the Republicans just for drawing heat? He didn't do
anything wrong? Any of you Republicans agree with that? Will Republicans
throw someone to the wolves that didn't do anything wrong just for drawing
heat?
By all reports, FEMA responded to this disaster than they have to any
other disaster in their history.
All reports? Check the latest Newsweek for just one of many different views.
(If you would like to make a point, it would help to specify HOW you claim
they responded. I'm guessing you wanted to claim faster.)
Newsweek is a bit populist rag that appeals to emotions. It's writing
is a bit sensationalist for my taste.
Well, you did say "all reports" and I mentioned Newsweek to show that you,
once again, got it wrong. Newsweek is not the only one. I'll get you more.
So to clarify, it's not "All reports?"
BTW, what did Newsweek say that wasn't true?
If you wish to learn what the standard is rather than what the media
thinks it should be, read this.
<http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf>
I've quoted Appendix 5 so you don't have to read the whole thing.
Appendix 5
Overview of Initial Federal Involvement Under the Stafford Act
This overview illustrates actions Federal agencies likely will take to
assist State and local governments that are overwhelmed by a major
disaster or emergency.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
I stopped reading at "actions Federal agencies likely will take." That has
about as much force as "We would hope that" or "Chances are they will."
Now you're getting the picture. Those who would depend upon the Federal
Government are always going to be disappointed.
What we have here is a failure of expectations and misplaced faith.
There was one group that had mixed performance levels, the
governments, local, state and federal. Of the three, the federal
government did more to help than the other two. Of course, it had more
resources, but the city and state had more resources than they employed.
There were three groups who performed with excellence and competence.
Churches, private organizations and the military.
From a conservative perspective, it is a slam dunk. Keep the government's
role to a minimum and when we do involve the government, let them provide
the cash and material and allow those who know what they're doing
actually run the show.
Thank goodness we don't have national health care. We would see this same
performance there except that it would happen to us one at a time and
nobody else would know.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
.
