Posted on 09/05/2005 8:21:34 PM PDT by Jeff Head
Excellent presentation of thoughts that most of us find hard to express.
From your text I got the message that adults becoming resourceful (instead of waiting around for others to help), is essential to survival and self-respect.
sp
I believe the governor is now politically using the situation to, (1) make poilitical points, and, (2) attempting to cover her own incompetence.
Amen...exactly! See the LESSON SEVEN I added in post 188.
And those very specific mechanisms would be what? Please provide a concrete example of a governor invoking those mechanisms in a way that you consider to be correct.
Could you please provide an example of an actual governor doing this in a way that you consider to be correct? Or perhaps guidelines showing that the way this letter is worded is incorrect, or that it limits the federal government's response in some way?
A single statement taken out of context and refuted by showing and applying the context renders your total showing a big zero.
"The "lowest possible level" doesn't mean that the president has to wait around for local officials' permission to do anything;"
Yes it does as I've pointed out.
"I've already pointed out several times, the state *did* ask the feds to carry out their responsibilities under the Stafford Act."
The LA governor limited the fed response in accord with her worldview. The governor's request was certainly not a blanket request for any and all help available.
"leaving aside what the law currently is, do you think that the federal government should have to wait for a state's permission to take charge of a matter that threatens national security?"
You don't ignore law when it comes to govm't decision and action. National Security is fairly well defined in reality. The happenings in LA did not threaten national security. Those things in LA that might have threatened national security were fairly well taken care of.
My expectation, given the specific language in the other areas would be to see that same specific languiage for the areas in question. There isn't any in the LA Governor's letters.
I would be interested in seeing what the Govenors of MIssissippi and Alabama requested.
My point remains, I believe without specific requests to the same, that the Federal Government cannot (and should not) take control of the National Guard within the state's specific invitation to do so, outside of incidnets that endanger the whole nation. Invasion, national insurrection, etc.
My evidence is simply the fact that this particular area has remained a point of contention with Louisiana. I do not view that as a failing of the Bush administration or the federal response...which I believe is the kernal of the discussion.
In fact, as I have stated, on the whole, given the extent of the damage and the magnitude, I believe the federal response to date has been very good indeed...outside I am sure of some very local and specific issues.
Ping.
Excellent article, as always.
I think advantage of the situation is being taken by those that both desire to inflict as much unwarranted political damage on Bush as possible and those who desire mandatory FEMA take overs.
Obviously this poster who signed up yeserday assumes mandatory FEMA take overs are already firmly established in law. That leaves political assasination as the motive. There's an enormous quantity of well wishing folks that can easily be led to believe that something could have been done by the feds to save something. There wasn't, because the folks in LA chose their leaders who were to be in charge. The folks outside LA are just helpers, not the leaders in charge. The folks outside can be saviors, but only at the local gov's request, or after their failures.
Spot on and very well said.
Did you watch Brit Hume's program tonight? They discussed the inability for Bush to have the Feds take over...unless he forced his way into doing so....citing a specific reason (I forget the word they used, but something close in meaning to civil unrest). I think it was Krauthammer who said that the only thing that Bush would have been able to state as cause was looting...and taking the state over by force wouldn't have been something Bush wanted to do...Fred Barnes said his only mistake was being to complicit with the LA Gov., after asking her to allow the Feds to take over and, a day later, she refused.
Thanks...I hope people everywhere learn the lessons from this tragedy and apply them in their lives and communities.
My access to media is limited, so I've seen very little. I do have radio, so I was able to catch some of the LA officials comments. Before the Katrina's winds even dropped below 60 MPH, some higher end NO libs were yacking out from Chicago to blame Bush for what happened. Hannity just had that itchy scratchy Senator 'toon from NY on, calling for hearings on this. Nonpartisan of course... LOL! No matter what, the libs would get marching orders and talking points. The important part is none of them regard any substantial real failures, just bogus hype.
That's what they are....all hype, no substance. The gov. of LA failed miserably, as did the Mayor...to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of citizens.
Or "bug out bag" (BOB). The problem with either is that you'd better have some place to go, with prepositioned supplies and shelter.
Living in the woods isn't feasable for 99.99% of people.
Listening to Don Rumsfield discussing why the military was a bit slow going in. The first words out of his mouth were,"Well, we need to be invited ...." Then he went on to talk about the prestaging.
Very good?! People who survived the storm died of starvation and dehydration waiting for someone to bring them supplies and/or rescue them. At the same time that the nation was watching people at the NOLA convention center beg for food and water on national TV, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security was saying that he was unaware that there were people there who needed help. What exactly about that letter leads you to believe that it prevents the federal government from air-dropping food and water to starving American citizens?
Arm and defend all first responders. They shouldn't be held up by shooting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.