OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...

The Commandant of the Coast Guard reports directly to Homeland Security.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Org_Chart.jpg


Did they get orders via Homeland Security?

If so, why weren't some of the other branches of Homeland Security on the
spot?

DSK


What other branches? As far as I can tell, "Homeland Security" is nothing
but a bunch of suits. Do they own a few thousand personnel whose job it is
to get wet & dirty?

That's the problem. All bark and no bite. Our military is the only part of
our government that has the men, resources, chain of command, and funding to
handle disasters of that magnitude. Somehow, authority over a portion of
that military (the Reserves or the Guard) needs to be given to DHS.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
So how was Bush supposed to handle the Katrina crisis?


By sending people other than the National Guard


NOYB wrote:
LOL. So who are these imaginary people that you would send?

Are you seriously suggesting that the National Guard is the only resource
for disaster relief? What about FEMA?



.... The military is off-limits thanks to Posse Comitatus

For use as police forces, yes. For disaster relief, no.
Let me remind you that the U.S. Navy was quite prominent in sending ships,
including a hospital ship, to the relief of disaster victims. But they
didn't get orders until the Friday after Katrina had hit... a full working
week.

You can't mobilize the military on an "if-come".

Rescue operations are performed in the following order:

1) local and state law enforcement (and local completely collapsed, with
most walking off the job, and some participating in the looting)

2) the state-controlled National Guard

3) DoD-controlled Reserves

4) DoD-controlled Active Duty

If the DoD gets involved, guess who heads the chain of command? Someone has
to have ultimate authority over all operations...which means that the DoD
has authority over civilian operations. And only the Governor can request
that. (That's where Lt Maj. Honore eventually came in. He's the guy who
coined the phrase "stuck on stupid")

Are you suggesting that the Federal government should have sent
DoD-controlled troops prior to, or in the immediate aftermath of the storm?
The problem with that is logistics. The National Guard and Reserves already
have troops and equipment in place. The troops who were sent in later had
to come from all over the country. That doesn't happen overnight. And it
can't happen until the Governor requests it.


"Lieutenant General Joseph Inge, the deputy commander of the US Northern
Command, which provided the forces for the military part of the relief
effort, said active-duty soldiers will not get involved in any forced
evacuations. "We are told there are some 900 policemen in New Orleans," he
said. "We would certainly see forcing evacuation as a first priority for
them to work. If the authorities in the state of Louisiana chose to use
their National Guard, in a state status, that would certainly be permissible
and their call. When this turns into a law enforcement issue, which we
perceive forced evacuation is, regular troops would not be used."

Active-duty troops can only have authority over civilians in the United
States if the state governor asks for such help, or if the president orders
it. There has only been one such presidential order since the U.S. civil war
in the 1860s, when troops were used to force racial integration at the
University of Mississippi."



http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...tf-katrina.htm

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

DSK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
Why let NOYB suck you down with his political nonsense?


Because after his hypocrisy & illogic is blatantly exposed,
he'll wait longer before he does it again.

A desire for the common good will keep most men honest, but
the ones that won't need to have their butts kicked once in
a while.

DSK

Sorry to disagree, but NOYB wants/needs/depends on somebody debating
him.

The problem isn't that his politics are extremely conservative. I have
been fortunate enough to meet some fine people who are very
conservative, and there are some intelligent and sincere individuals in
that group. The problem is that he dumps his wheelbarrow full of manure
in the NG in the first place. He says, "Go screw yourself if you don't
like it, ignore it." Yeah, well maybe its possible to avoid stepping in
it, but it's harder to ignore the flies it draws or the stench that
permeates the general area, and it encourages the next guy with a
"message" to follow NOYB's lead.

If this sort of topic prevails here, the next thing we know we'll have
all the characters from that neo-Nazi group cluttering up the works
again, and most of the rec.boats regulars will once again be choosing
up sides for the naming and flaming contests.

Why NOYB wants to be part of the problem instead of part of the
solution is a mystery to me, but why encourage him by giving him what
he wants, argument and debate?

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

NOYB wrote:
FEMA doesn't have near enough people to handle a crisis that reaches the
magnitude of katrina...

So why bother having the agency at all?
You are saying that without taking control of the National
Guard, President Bush does not have enough resources to
commit to any rescue and relief effort.

FEMA provided such an effort, only they got started a week late.

In other words, your basic premise is shown to be incorrect
by your own statements.



So now answer the question:
Who are these imaginary people you would send?


I guess the whole range of federal agencies and bureaus from
the VA to the FDA are imaginary?


Let me remind you that the U.S. Navy was quite prominent in sending ships,
including a hospital ship, to the relief of disaster victims. But they
didn't get orders until the Friday after Katrina had hit... a full working
week.


The U.S. Navy wasn't providing law enforcement,

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with my point.

President Bush did *not* need to request control of the
Louisiana National Guard, since he could (and later did)
send the U.S. military to provide rescue & relief services.


.... If you remember, there were two issue preventing assistance
from reaching the area:

1) a destroyed infrastructure (flooded roads, unsafe bridges, etc)


Are you saying that the Feds might as well not send anybody,
or are you saying the state has more & better resources to
overcome this problem?


2) hoodlums rioting and firing at rescue workers


That was a problem, yes. Was Bush's control of the National
Guard necessary to solve it? Since they were already moving
in that direction, and did just as much or more than any
federal agency & did it sooner, I'd suggest the answer to
that is 'no.'




Did they get orders via Homeland Security?


Of course!


THen why did no other Homeland Security agency provide aid &
rescue *during* the storm itself, much less immediately after?



If so, why weren't some of the other branches of Homeland Security on the
spot?



Which branches are you speaking of? Homeland Security doesn't have it's own
branch to handle law enforcement issues in times of crisis.

I suggest you take a look at the number of agencies under
the umbrella of Homeland Security.


... Perhaps the
answer is to assign to DHS the authority over a portion of each state's
National Guard or Reserve troops to handle law enforcement issues in times
of crisis.


Perhaps the answer is NOT have a President and an executive
administration that thinks it's fine & dandy to have large
numbers of Democrats drowned & their homes & cities blasted.

Maybe the Posse Comitatus act is a good thing, if it occured
to Karl Rove then Bush might have ordered the U.S. military
to attack Democrat controlled areas in the absence of any
disaster.

DSK

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
Sorry to disagree, but NOYB wants/needs/depends on somebody debating
him.


Probably so, but I don't think he wants to be shown up so
badly.


The problem isn't that his politics are extremely conservative.

His politics aren't conservative at all. They're fascist.
And I don't mean that as an insult, I mean that as per the
dictionary definition of "fascist."


... I have
been fortunate enough to meet some fine people who are very
conservative, and there are some intelligent and sincere individuals in
that group.

Yep. He's not one of them. Most intelligent people don't put
ideology first, and of course being sincere precludes being
as much of a hypocrit as NOYB is.

In any event, I agree that it's a load of manure, and will stop.

DSK

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
FEMA doesn't have near enough people to handle a crisis that reaches the
magnitude of katrina...

So why bother having the agency at all?
You are saying that without taking control of the National Guard,
President Bush does not have enough resources to commit to any rescue and
relief effort.

Correct. He either needs to have control over the guard in times of
disaster...or he needs to be able to use the military for recovery efforts
*and* law enforcement.





FEMA provided such an effort, only they got started a week late.

In other words, your basic premise is shown to be incorrect by your own
statements.



So now answer the question:
Who are these imaginary people you would send?


I guess the whole range of federal agencies and bureaus from the VA to the
FDA are imaginary?


Let me remind you that the U.S. Navy was quite prominent in sending
ships, including a hospital ship, to the relief of disaster victims. But
they didn't get orders until the Friday after Katrina had hit... a full
working week.


The U.S. Navy wasn't providing law enforcement,

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with my point.

President Bush did *not* need to request control of the Louisiana National
Guard, since he could (and later did) send the U.S. military to provide
rescue & relief services.

You missed the description of how things work:

1) local/state law enforcement
2) National Guard
3) US Military.

In one breath, you oppose executive branch control of first-reponders, and
in the next breath, you're criticizing the President for not sending the
U.S. military in sooner.





.... If you remember, there were two issue preventing assistance from
reaching the area:

1) a destroyed infrastructure (flooded roads, unsafe bridges, etc)


Are you saying that the Feds might as well not send anybody, or are you
saying the state has more & better resources to overcome this problem?


The state has neither more nor better resources...but they have the benefit
of personnel and equipment in close proximity to the disaster.




2) hoodlums rioting and firing at rescue workers


That was a problem, yes. Was Bush's control of the National Guard
necessary to solve it?


Not if the governor was competent and sent the Guard to control it sooner.


Since they were already moving in that direction, and did just as much or
more than any federal agency & did it sooner, I'd suggest the answer to
that is 'no.'




Did they get orders via Homeland Security?


Of course!


THen why did no other Homeland Security agency provide aid & rescue
*during* the storm itself, much less immediately after?



Which other DHS agencies are you speaking about?



If so, why weren't some of the other branches of Homeland Security on the
spot?



Which branches are you speaking of? Homeland Security doesn't have it's
own branch to handle law enforcement issues in times of crisis.

I suggest you take a look at the number of agencies under the umbrella of
Homeland Security.


I've seen the list. So which agency has the people and equipment necessary?



... Perhaps the answer is to assign to DHS the authority over a portion
of each state's National Guard or Reserve troops to handle law
enforcement issues in times of crisis.


Perhaps the answer is NOT have a President and an executive administration
that thinks it's fine & dandy to have large numbers of Democrats drowned &
their homes & cities blasted.

This is where your argument falls apart. By making this a Republican v.
Democrat issue, you've exposed yourself as not a problem-solver, but a
partisan hack.



Maybe the Posse Comitatus act is a good thing, if it occured to Karl Rove
then Bush might have ordered the U.S. military to attack Democrat
controlled areas in the absence of any disaster.

Perhaps. Or he could just blow up the levees and drown all of the
Democrats. Oh wait! He used that one already.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

You are saying that without taking control of the National Guard,
President Bush does not have enough resources to commit to any rescue and
relief effort.


NOYB wrote:
Correct.

Incorrect.

How come, a week later, suddenly there are all kinds of
resources to commit?

Still no Presidential control of the Nat'l Guard.

In other words, bzzztt WRONG

again.

thanks for playing this round of Bush-Bot Excuse-Makers,
good bye until next week.



In one breath, you oppose executive branch control of first-reponders,

Correct.


in the next breath, you're criticizing the President for not sending the
U.S. military in sooner.


Correct.
Since he CAN send the military for rescue & relief efforts,
why wait a week while having a tantrum over the National Guard?

That was playing politics, pure & simple.


That was a problem, yes. Was Bush's control of the National Guard
necessary to solve it?



Not if the governor was competent and sent the Guard to control it sooner.


Considering that the National Guard *was* sent, then that
makes Presidential control pretty much irrelevant doesn't it?

The whole argument falls apart. It is merely a partisan
power-grab which you of course support.





I suggest you take a look at the number of agencies under the umbrella of
Homeland Security.



I've seen the list. So which agency has the people and equipment necessary?


Considering that pretty much all federal law enforcement can
be directed, under appropriate circumstances, by the
Inspector General's office, that would be a pretty good
start *if* the problem is ensuring law & order & protection
of relief workers. How about U.S. Marshals? How about the
Treasury and Secret Service and Border Patrol? All that
would be necessary to put a *vast* array of law enforcement
manpower into play would be a brief memo from the President.

Didn't happen, did it? Wonder why?




Perhaps the answer is to NOT have a President and an executive administration
that thinks it's fine & dandy to have large numbers of Democrats drowned &
their homes & cities blasted.


This is where your argument falls apart. By making this a Republican v.
Democrat issue, you've exposed yourself as not a problem-solver, but a
partisan hack.

And you say this after repeatedly calling Democrats
incompetent even though they did pretty much the exact same
thing any Republican would have done in the circumstances,
only sooner.

In other words, because I show up your feeble excuses for
the hypocritical double-dealing that they are, you call me a
partisan hack while indulging yourself in partisan hackery
with all your might (feeble though it apparently is).

Nice going, comrade NOYB! This thread is another triumph for
the socialist cause! My work here is done. Besides, I don't
want Chuck to yell at me any more.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:54:54 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


I am not sure about that. I am sure they are fed up with the crap
that
both
major political parties have foisted on the public in the guise of
candidates and the actions of the legislators. Both the Dem's and
Repubs,
may both go the way of the Whigs if a 3rd party comes up with good
candidates and platform.

If Perot hadn't been so damn wishy-washy in '92. I agree with what you
say about the Ds and Rs, but they have been in control so long, the
cards
are heavily stacked against a third party.

If Perot wasn't around, Bush 41 would have been elected to a second term.

Thank the stars that idiot (dumber than his son, even) wasn't elected
to another term. He did nothing for this country.


You mean, aside from capturing Noriega, tossing Saddam's army from Kuwait,
preventing Saddam's army from capturing the Saudi oil fields, and serving as
President when the Berlin Wall fell?

Nope, nothing useful happened as a result of his Presidency.

OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
 

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:54:54 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


I am not sure about that. I am sure they are fed up with the crap
that
both
major political parties have foisted on the public in the guise of
candidates and the actions of the legislators. Both the Dem's and
Repubs,
may both go the way of the Whigs if a 3rd party comes up with good
candidates and platform.

If Perot hadn't been so damn wishy-washy in '92. I agree with what you
say about the Ds and Rs, but they have been in control so long, the
cards
are heavily stacked against a third party.

If Perot wasn't around, Bush 41 would have been elected to a second term.

Thank the stars that idiot (dumber than his son, even) wasn't elected
to another term. He did nothing for this country.


You mean, aside from capturing Noriega,
Yeah, and that helped our country how??

tossing Saddam's army from Kuwait,

And that did what good for our country?

preventing Saddam's army from capturing the Saudi oil fields,
That was a unilateral effort. Thank the U.N for that, which you right
wingers despise so much because they won't knee-jerk into a war.

and serving as
President when the Berlin Wall fell?

and that did what for our country? And also, who set that whole thing
up?

Nope, nothing useful happened as a result of his Presidency.
Exactly, thank you for agreeing.