"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?

FEMA doesn't have near enough people to handle a crisis that reaches the
magnitude of katrina...and certainly not the number of people or resources
necessary to handle law enforcement.

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





.... 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.

The U.S. Navy wasn't providing law enforcement, which is prohibited under
Posse Comitatus. If you remember, there were two issue preventing assistance
from reaching the area:

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

2) hoodlums rioting and firing at rescue workers






and the National Guard is off-limits thanks to Gov. Blanco's refusal to
hand them over to the President.


Which was totally legal & proper, according to Governor Jeb Bush.


Fine. But Blanco was incompetent. It took Bush's urging before she ever
called them up to assist.



Where would you find the people you speak of?


Start at the FEMA office and work my way down the hall.

Here's a nice list to chose from.

http://12.46.245.173/cfda/prog_index.html


Let's put it this way... the U.S. Coast Guard was *there* that very
afternoon.



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?

Of course!


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. 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.

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

"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.

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.