Posted on 09/08/2005 6:57:07 PM PDT by sissyjane
Edited on 09/08/2005 11:37:58 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
>> WHITE HOUSE MULLED SEIZING RELIEF MISSION // Invoke the Insurrection Act? Bush's senior advisers debated last week whether the president should seize control of the chaotic hurricane relief mission from the governor so that active-duty combat troops could be sent to enforce order... Developing
Update******
Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop Aid
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.
For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort.
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. The debate 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 showed 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..."
".. To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Governor Blanco would have resisted surrendering control of the military relief mission as Bush Administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. 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......."
Is there any truth to the rumor from LA folks that she was on meds, and, if so, what were they?
That would depend entirely upon what your definition of lacking means is.
Not with the media ignoring Blanco and Nagin and pinning it on Bush.
Ya that's what hints it hints at. CDC, Citizen Corps etc
The federal government has supremacy in issues of national security, and this was such a matter.
If Bush would have done it, he would have been justified.
I have no idea...but I wouldn't be surprised.
Yup. The principles are pretty simple, really. And yet there is no easy answer.
Just where in the US Constitution is the term "States Rights" used?
The state was inept from day one.
Once the riots broke out, it was time to wrest control of the situation away from Blanco. It became a national security crisis.
You seem to be taking lessons from Bill Clinton. I think the words are clear enough.
Can I read this to you again so you understand this? Mary Landrieu cooked the books. "After a $194 million deepening project for the Port of Iberia flunked a Corps cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) tucked language into an emergency Iraq spending bill ordering the agency to redo its calculations." In other words: Cook the books so that the cost-benefit analysis works, because we want the money.
Link to WAPO story he quotes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html
With all the info available here on the board and all of the links that show up here from other outlets it is very frustrating to NOT see any of this coming out in a big way all over the place!
Snow / Rush / Hannity were all on it today...kudos to Major Garrett and Brit Hume!!! But this should be headlining news EVERYWHERE...there's too much info for the HBM to ignore or bury and their lame attempts to spin it onto W's shoulders has got to fail.
But the people with the news have got to get it in the face of those who are spinning/ignoring the truth...
Karen Hughes
Agree!
Who turned them away?
Surprisingly, the NY Times article this came from is actually pretty fair.
Article IV
Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
I can't find any info on the Houston Vietnamese Buddhist church. Do you have any info?
No one got the full picture on the ground. Blanco's decisions now seem ludicrous because we can see them in there entirety as played out on a time line. When it was happening, and if you were on the ground in charge of the LANG or the Wildlife Service, the small order that you received may have made sense. At least it could come down to a judgment call. It wasn't until after the Levees broke and the shooting started that the politicians in N.O. even realized they had a problem. And by then, limiting civilian access to the city probably seemed like the right idea.
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.