Barbara Bush on the refugee's & the NY Times on Bush

[Mageboy25]

Im sure this got covered in the thread with 500 posts. However I do not feel like shifting through all of those. So lets start bitching here:

Barbara Bush: Things Working Out "Very Well" for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans


By E&P Staff / Editor & Publisher

NEW YORK -- Accompanying her husband, former President George H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."

The former First Lady's remarks were aired this evening on National Public Radio's "Marketplace" program.

She was part of a group in Houston today at the Astrodome that included her husband and former President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son, the current president, to head fundraising efforts for the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama were also present.

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."


Bush shows indifference, incompetence

By BOB HERBERT
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Neither the death of the chief justice nor the frantic efforts of panicked White House political advisers can conceal the magnitude of the president's failure of leadership last week. The catastrophe in New Orleans billowed up like the howling winds of hell and was carried live and in color on television screens across the United States and around the world.

The Big Easy had turned into the Big Hurt, and the colossal failure of George W. Bush to intervene powerfully and immediately to rescue tens of thousands of U.S. citizens who were suffering horribly and dying in agony was there for all the world to see.

Hospitals with deathly ill patients were left without power, with ventilators that didn't work, with floodwaters rising on the lower floors and with corpses rotting in the corridors and stairwells. People unable to breathe on their own, or with cancer or heart disease or kidney failure, slipped into comas and sank into their final sleep in front of helpless doctors and relatives. These were Americans in desperate trouble.

The president didn't seem to notice.

Death and the stink of decay were all over the city. Corpses were propped up in wheelchairs and on lawn furniture, or left to decompose on sunbaked sidewalks. Some floated by in water fouled by human feces.

Degenerates roamed the city, shooting at rescue workers, beating and robbing distraught residents and tourists, raping women and girls. The president of the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world didn't seem to notice.

Viewers could watch diabetics go into insulin shock on national television, and you could see babies with the pale, vacant look of hunger that we're more used to seeing in dispatches from the Third World. You could see their mothers, dirty and hungry themselves, weeping.

Old, critically ill people were left to soil themselves and in some cases die like stray animals on the floor of an airport triage center. For days the president of the United States didn't seem to notice.

He would have noticed if the majority of these stricken folks had been white and prosperous. But they weren't. Most were black and poor, and thus, to the Bush administration, still invisible.

After days of withering criticism from white and black Americans, from conservatives as well as liberals, from Republicans and Democrats, the president finally felt compelled to act, however feebly. (The chorus of criticism from nearly all quarters demanding that the president do something tells me that the nation as a whole is so much better than this administration.)

Bush flew south on Friday and proved (as if more proof were needed) that he didn't get it. Instead of urgently focusing on the people who were stranded, hungry, sick and dying, he engaged in small talk, reminiscing at one point about the days when he used to party in New Orleans, and mentioning that Trent Lott had lost one of his houses but that it would be replaced with "a fantastic house -- and I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch."

Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever by a president during a dire national emergency. What we witnessed, as clearly as the overwhelming agony of the city of New Orleans, was the dangerous incompetence and the staggering indifference to human suffering of the president and his administration.

And it is this incompetence and indifference to suffering (yes, the carnage continues to mount in Iraq) that makes it so hard to be optimistic about the prospects for the United States over the next few years. At a time when effective, innovative leadership is desperately needed to cope with matters of war and peace, terrorism and domestic security, the economic imperatives of globalization and the rising competition for oil, the United States is being led by a man who seems oblivious to the reality of his awesome responsibilities.

Like a boy being prepped for a second crack at a failed exam, Bush has been meeting with his handlers to see what steps can be taken to minimize the political fallout from this latest demonstration of his ineptitude.

But this is not about politics. It's about competence. And when the president is so obviously clueless about matters so obviously important, it means that the rest of us, like the people left stranded in New Orleans, are in deep, deep trouble.

Bob Herbert is a columnist with The New York Times. Copyright 2005 New York Times News Service. E-mail: [email protected]

[GODDESS6]

this is awful, but not surprising, i wonder would she say the same thing about the 30 elderly patients they just found drowned in their hospital beds, left by staff who fled for their lives? :distress: ~

[Mari]

yep, posted before, but it's worth posting. I actually don't really know what to say about anymore about all the news that keeps coming, but I'm still reading it.

[SuzeQuze]

The house minority leader Nancy Pelosi said that in talking with Bush she asked him what he thought went wrong last week and he replied he didn't think anything went wrong. She said, would he fire Brown, he said "Why would I do that?" :distress: She said she felt he was dangerously in denial. I can't find her exact quote, it was more powerful than that.

He is grossly incompetent. His negligence during this catastrophe is criminal. How could he? I am glad the press keeps covering this and calling him out.

[gldstwmn]

The house minority leader Nancy Pelosi said that in talking with Bush she asked him what he thought went wrong last week and he replied he didn't think anything went wrong. She said, would he fire Brown, he said "Why would I do that?" :distress: She said she felt he was dangerously in denial. I can't find her exact quote, it was more powerful than that.

He is grossly incompetent. His negligence during this catastrophe is criminal. How could he? I am glad the press keeps covering this and calling him out.

It was quoted in one of the other threads.
Isn't it time for him to be called on the high crimes and misdememanors? Hillary Clinton is asking for an independent investigation.

[SuzeQuze]

It was quoted in one of the other threads.
Isn't it time for him to be called on the high crimes and misdememanors? Hillary Clinton is asking for an independent investigation.

I did catch that afterward. She said he is "oblivious". I hope Hillary gets her way, that is what is needed.

[Nixxxed]

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.090805B1C_sm.jpg

[SapphireSister]

Do you guys think things would have been handled any differently if this had occurred during Clinton's presidency?

[dissention]

Do you guys think things would have been handled any differently if this had occurred during Clinton's presidency?

I'm no fan of Clinton, but I'd venture a guess and say most definitely. The man was no slouch.

[SuzeQuze]

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.090805B1C_sm.jpg

:lol: That really captures her essence, its fetching really. :lol:

[SuzeQuze]

I'm no fan of Clinton, but I'd venture a guess and say most definitely.

Can I get a, "Hell yeah!"? Clinton has more capacity for empathy in his pinky than the President has at all.

[strandinthewind]

Do you guys think things would have been handled any differently if this had occurred during Clinton's presidency?


Who can say for sure because there are so many different players. I do know this though, Clinton would have appeared far more humane in this. For example, he would not have said this was so important that he cut his five week vacation short by two days in an effort to look like he actually gave a shiitte.

[SapphireSister]

I keep saying to myself over and over "And this is the person (Bush) the American people chose to lead their country" (not me personally). It's quite frightening actually. :distress:

[dissention]

I keep saying to myself over and over "And this is the person (Bush) the American people chose to lead their country" (not me personally). It's quite frightening actually. :distress:

I'm still waiting for the people who said they were voting for him because he could protect us to come out of the woodwork.

[SuzeQuze]

Who can say for sure because there are so many different players. I do know this though, Clinton would have appeared far more humane in this. For example, he would not have said this was so important that he cut his five week vacation short by two days in an effort to look like he actually gave a shiitte.

A. He would not have been on a 5 week vacation to begin with.
B. He would not have appointed someone like Brown to head FEMA, all his friends are smart.
C. IF he had been on vacation he would have come off of it immediately.

I can't prove any of the above since he is not the president. Would this have been handled differently had Gore been awarded the presidency that he won the popular vote for? Again, can I get a "Hell yeah!"?

[SuzeQuze]

I'm still waiting for the people who said they were voting for him because he could protect us to come out of the woodwork.

My heart sinks every time I think of this. When he was working out and acting blase during his campain while Gore was out working hard I was convinced people wouldn't vote for him. I overestimated people. He's handled his presidency in just as careless a manner. :distress:

[BombaySapphire3]

It was quoted in one of the other threads.
Isn't it time for him to be called on the high crimes and misdememanors? Hillary Clinton is asking for an independent investigation.
With the courts ,the house and to a lesser extent the Senate packed with Bush supporters ,sadly he is unlikely to be brought up on charges.After all this is a man who lost the popular and most likely the electoral vote in 2000 and still managed to become President and has so far gotten away with the whole Iraq debacle .And if you look at the polls so far 90% of Republicans think he did a good or great job in responding to Katrina.I guess empathy and the ability to feel how one of these people trapped in New Orleans for 4 + days felt is beyond these people.Self proclaimed Christians who seem to have totally missed out on the basic teachings of Christ "Love they neighbor as thyself' and 'Do unto other as you would have them do unto you'

[strandinthewind]

With the courts ,the house and to a lesser extent the Senate packed with Bush supporters ,sadly he is unlikely to be brought up on charges.After all this is a man who lost the popular and most likely the electoral vote in 2000 and still managed to become President and has so far gotten away with the whole Iraq debacle .And if you look at the polls so far 90% of Republicans think he did a good or great job in responding to Katrina.I guess empathy and the ability to feel how one of these people trapped in New Orleans for 4 + days felt is beyond these people.Self proclaimed Christians who seem to have totally missed out on the basic teachings of Christ "Love they neighbor as thyself' and 'Do unto other as you would have them do unto you'

I do not think Bush broke any laws here. I think he acted carelessly and is a jerk for that. But, that is not against the law.

[SuzeQuze]

I do not think Bush broke any laws here. I think he acted carelessly and is a jerk for that. But, that is not against the law.

Isn't gross negligence a crime?

[dissention]

Isn't gross negligence a crime?

What happened here is genocide by indifference. If there is any justice in the world, him and his current regime will pay in more ways than we can imagine.

[macfanken]

I can't prove any of the above since he is not the president. Would this have been handled differently had Gore been awarded the presidency that he won the popular vote for? Again, can I get a "Hell yeah!"?

Has anything been posted here about Al Gore chartering an American Airlines jet to fly patients and evacuees out of New Orleans?

[SuzeQuze]

Has anything been posted here about Al Gore chartering an American Airlines jet to fly patients and evacuees out of New Orleans?

Yes, we gave reverence to his selflessness. Although some merely commented on his appearance. :rolleyes: i.wish.he.were.president. :(

[strandinthewind]

Isn't gross negligence a crime?

No - it is not. Moreover, it would be hard to prove Bush was the actual negligent one in this. The case is far stronger against Brown.

[dissention]

No - it is not. Moreover, it would be hard to prove Bush was the actual negligent one in this. The case is far stronger against Brown.

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!"

[macfanken]

Yes, we gave reverence to his selflessness. Although some merely commented on his appearance. :rolleyes: i.wish.he.were.president. :(

It does make you wonder how things would be different if he hadn't had the Presidency taken away from him... how many Iraqis and Americans who have been killed over the last five years would still be alive?

[strandinthewind]

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!"

Other than the horrible five day mistake - FEMA has done a pretty good job:

They were there ahead of time in the Dome thanks to W declaring it a DA.

They along with the state evacuated thousands to the Conv. Center after the hurricane left.

Once they got there, they got around 100,000 out and into shelters in three or so days.

They are placing people in housing other than the shelters now and giving them 2,000 per household.

So, when W goes to defend this, he will point to those good things and he is correct - they are good if not great things.

IMO - no matter how good those things are, they cannot make up for:

those five days when FEMA allegedly did not know that around 30,000 were about eight blocks from the Superdome and it was being reported 24/7 on many television stations throughout the world.

rejecting immediately available assistance and instead waiting until they could get their act together and send it in en masse on Friday.

the covering up they are doing now.

[amber]

But - you can sue people for negligence - can you sue the federal gov't for it, or something similar?? You know, not a criminal suit, a civil one?

[dissention]

Other than the horrible five day mistake

The "five day mistake" that you refer to is unforgivable and they won't be getting any praises from me. Ever. Is it wonderful that people finally started getting help? Hell yes. But I cannot overlook how their incompetence led to the deaths and suffering of who knows how many, and for that, I could never fathom saying "FEMA has done a pretty good job." Just my opinion.

[strandinthewind]

But - you can sue people for negligence - can you sue the federal gov't for it, or something similar?? You know, not a criminal suit, a civil one?

The doctrine of sovereign immunity states the Federal Govt. is immune from a lawsuit unless it consents to be sued, which it will not or has not done in this instance.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Ever. Is it wonderful that people finally started getting help? Hell yes.

FEMA began aiding people on Sunday :shrug: But, I think by "finally" you are referring to the five day thing.

But I cannot overlook how their incompetence led to the deaths and suffering of who knows how many, and for that, I could never fathom saying "FEMA has done a pretty good job." Just my opinion.

Perhaps - but if they pulled you and your baby off of a roof and then brought you to safety and then fed and clothed you and put money in your pocket and found you shelter - you might have an inkling of praise for them.

Again, the five days are unforgiveable - I am not saying otherwise.

[SuzeQuze]

The doctrine of sovereign immunity states the Federal Govt. is immune from a lawsuit unless it consents to be sued, which it will not or has not done in this instance.

Plus when it is done they can tie it up in courts dragging their feet forever while the little guy goes broke from legal fees, right?

Tie Brown up by his ___.

[strandinthewind]

Plus when it is done they can tie it up in courts dragging their feet forever while the little guy goes broke from legal fees, right?

Tie Brown up by his ___.

Most lawyers would take this on a contingency fee basis which means they would get a percentage of any monetary settlement as payment in lieu of fees. So, the fee issue is not really there from that perspective.

As for a criminal suit, the Justice Dept would have to initiate that against the FEMA people and the Senate probably would via impeachment against W.

[amber]

The doctrine of sovereign immunity states the Federal Govt. is immune from a lawsuit unless it consents to be sued, which it will not or has not done in this instance.
That's...odd...I remember learning something else in my class...which i can't remember the details of. :rolleyes: Isn't there some loophole type thing to that...or something? Actually, my contact just told me he's not aware of any suits successfully being brought against the gov't.
Thanks for the info.

[strandinthewind]

That's...odd...I remember learning something else in my class...which i can't remember the details of. :rolleyes: Isn't there some loophole type thing to that...or something? Actually, my contact just told me he's not aware of any suits successfully being brought against the gov't.
Thanks for the info.

The govt. often expressly waives SI.

Here is some info.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY - A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] without its consent. Though commonly believed to be rooted in English law, it is actually rooted in the inherent nature of power and the ability of those who hold power to shield themselves.

In England it was predicated on the concept that "the sovereign can do no wrong", a concept developed and enforced by - guess who? However, since the American revolution explictedly rejected this interesting idea, the American rulers had to come up with another rationale to protect their power. One they came up with is that the "sovereign is exempt from suit [on the] practical ground that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." 205 U.S. 349, 353.

"[S]tatutes waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States must be`construed strictly in favor of the sovereign." McMahon v. United States, 342 U.S. 25, 27 (1951).

11 U.S.C. S 106, "Waiver of Sovereign Immunity," provides:

(a) A governmental unit is deemed to have waived sovereign immunity with respect to any claim against such governmental unit that is property of the estate and that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence out of which such governmental unit's claim arose.

The interest served by federal sovereign immunity (the United States' freedom from paying damages without Congressional consent)

Federal sovereign immunity is readily distinguishable from the states' immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and foreign governments' immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The latter two doctrines allow one sovereign entity the right to avoid, altogether, being subjected to litigation in another sovereign's courts. Pullman Constr., 23 F.3d at 1169. Similar sovereignty concerns are not implicated by the maintenance of suit against the United States in federal court. Federal sovereign immunity has had such broad exceptions carved out of it that, as Pullman Construction concluded, "Congress, on behalf of the United States, has surrendered any comparable right not to be a litigant in its own courts." Id. In the present day, federal sovereign immunity serves merely to channel litigation into the appropriate avenue for redress, ensuring that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Pullman Constr. at 1168 (quoting Art. I, section 9, cl. 7).

Federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability rather than a right to be free from trial.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in a case involving the government's sovereign immunity the statute in question must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign and may not be enlarged beyond the waiver its language expressly requires. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-35 (1992).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm

In addition, the govt. will sometimes pay the legal fees on the party suing it pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) - which is too complicated for my finger to type :laugh: A google of that will reveal its many applications.

[amber]

Thanks. I just got other info that sections of the Fed gov't can be sued, for instance the Dept. of Interior, by the native americans, if the federal courts deem it a constitutional issue. I also just learned there's no laws on the books, or any handy guide, or anything, for the House to base impeachment on. They just get to make it up. Yay.

[strandinthewind]

Thanks. I just got other info that sections of the Fed gov't can be sued, for instance the Dept. of Interior, by the native americans, if the federal courts deem it a constitutional issue. I also just learned there's no laws on the books, or any handy guide, or anything, for the House to base impeachment on. They just get to make it up. Yay.

Those are still express waivers of SI.

Impeachment proceedings can be brought for any offense. The Const. has no requirement in the Constitution that it can only be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." These are merely the circumstances under which removal from office is obligatory. In the end, the process is so cumbersome and time consuming, it is rarely used and is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

[gldstwmn]

Do you guys think things would have been handled any differently if this had occurred during Clinton's presidency?

Is the Pope German? :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Who can say for sure because there are so many different players. I do know this though, Clinton would have appeared far more humane in this. For example, he would not have said this was so important that he cut his five week vacation short by two days in an effort to look like he actually gave a shiitte.

He never took a five week vacation.

[gldstwmn]

B. He would not have appointed someone like Brown to head FEMA, all his friends are smart.


Clinton's FEMA director, James Lee Witt was chosen by Governor Blanco to head the releif efforts in LA.

[gldstwmn]

My heart sinks every time I think of this. When he was working out and acting blase during his campain while Gore was out working hard I was convinced people wouldn't vote for him. I overestimated people. He's handled his presidency in just as careless a manner. :distress:

Gore won that election honey. He won the popular vote. They stole Florida.

[gldstwmn]

With the courts ,the house and to a lesser extent the Senate packed with Bush supporters ,sadly he is unlikely to be brought up on charges.After all this is a man who lost the popular and most likely the electoral vote in 2000 and still managed to become President and has so far gotten away with the whole Iraq debacle .And if you look at the polls so far 90% of Republicans think he did a good or great job in responding to Katrina.

Have you heard the audio clip of his wife repeatedly calling it "Corina"? :distress:

[gldstwmn]

I do not think Bush broke any laws here. I think he acted carelessly and is a jerk for that. But, that is not against the law.

Not so fast. He is charged with keeping his citizens safe. He was most certainly negligent in task.

[gldstwmn]

Has anything been posted here about Al Gore chartering an American Airlines jet to fly patients and evacuees out of New Orleans?

It has it's own thread. :)

[macfanken]

It has it's own thread. :)


OK, glad to hear it! I can't keep up with all of the threads! :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Here ya go:http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22152

I even posted pictures.

[BombaySapphire3]

Have you heard the audio clip of his wife repeatedly calling it "Corina"? :distress:
I actually saw her say it on CNN..sheesh what a Stepfordesque drone!

[irishgrl]

No - it is not. Moreover, it would be hard to prove Bush was the actual negligent one in this. The case is far stronger against Brown.
Malfeasance is a crime. malfeasance \mal-FEE-zuhn(t)s\, noun:Wrongdoing, misconduct, or misbehavior, especially by a public official. sounds like Bush to me........but if you want to get technical:
misfeasance
n. management of a business, public office or other responsibility in which there are errors and an unfortunate result through mistake or carelessness, but without evil intent and/or violation of law.
I suppose this is a more accurate description...



From what I've read, help was available in the form of military transport, on land and sea. all they needed was the Presidential go-ahead. have they even gotten it YET? This whole aspect of blaming the head of FEMA is silly when you consider that FEMA lost all its qualified people when it was absorbed (and downsized AND underfunded) by the Homeland Security dept. They have the head they deserve....This was ALL by act of the President. who didnt think the levies needed so much work/money. who didnt care about the crisis enuff to cut short his vacation. who makes inappropriate comments in a misguided photo-op. and the list goes on and on.

as for the question of whether Clinton would have acted any differently, I submit he IS acting differently. Its no accident he was tapped to head the relief effort. The ONLY smart thing Bushwad has done has been to ask for Clinton's help.

and as a parting shot:
A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.- Bertrand de Juvenal

[strandinthewind]

Malfeasance is a crime . . . .

Please site the exact law you refer to with "malfeasance."

[strandinthewind]

Not so fast. He is charged with keeping his citizens safe. He was most certainly negligent in task.

That is not a violation of law from a criminal aspect. True negligence is not a crime.

[dissention]

That is not a violation of law from a criminal aspect. True negligence is not a crime.

If it's true that Michael Brown lied on his resume, that's a crime and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Also, if he did, it doesn't look very good for Shrub after the whole Jeff Gannon debacle.

[strandinthewind]

If it's true that Michael Brown lied on his resume, that's a crime and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Also, if he did, it doesn't look very good for Shrub after the whole Jeff Gannon debacle.

I am unsure lying on your resume is a crime unless the fact that he is Federal Service makes it so - maybe someone can look up the law on that. Actually, his civil service contract probably is a standard Govt. form and it would indicate what if any crime it is to lie. Moreover, has it been proven to be a lie or was it puffing, which is very common on resumes - I am not being difficult here - just curious.

BTW - I feel confident no one in the masses remembers the Gannon thing and when it happened no significant amount of people gave a rat's ass - sad, very true.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I found this article. Interestingly, the somewhat misleading info is on the FEMA website and not the actual application. While it maybe some misdemeanor to lie on an application, I am pretty sure that is not the case on a website. But, even if it is, these are relatively minor as commented on below.


'Time' reports discrepancy on Brown's background

WASHINGTON (AP) — The official biography for Michael Brown, the beleaguered head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, contains a discrepancy about his background in emergency management, Time magazine reported.

A 2001 press release on the White House Web site says that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing emergency services divisions."

Brown's official biography on the FEMA Web site says that his background in state and local government also includes serving as "an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight" and as a city councilman.

But a former mayor of Edmond, Randel Shadid, told The Associated Press on Friday that Brown had been an assistant to the city manager. Shadid said Brown was never assistant city manager.

"I think there's a difference between the two positions," said Shadid. "I would think that is a discrepancy."

Asked later about the White House news release that said Brown oversaw Edmond's emergency services divisions, Shadid said, "I don't think that's a total stretch." [thus, the miswording of the title of the position does not matter here as the mayor is saying Brown oversaw emergency service divisions, which was the crux of the assertion no matter how poorly worded]
Time magazine first reported the discrepancy.

Separately, Newsday reported another discrepancy regarding Brown's background. The official White House announcement of Brown's nomination to head FEMA in January 2003 lists his previous experience as "the Executive Director of the Independent Electrical Contractors," a trade group based in Alexandria, Va.

Two officials of the group told Newsday this week that Brown never was the national head of the group but did serve as the executive director of a regional chapter, based in Colorado. [He was an Executive Director then :shrug: I mean though it is implied, the actual wording does not say Executive Director of the Independent Electrical Contractors of the USA - it just names no region]

Brown has become a primary target of criticism that the federal government responded too slowly to Hurricane Katrina, with many calls for his dismissal.

Regarding the discrepancy about his job in Oklahoma, Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, said, "According to our personnel records, Mike Brown was an assistant to the city manager from 1977 to 1980. I can't speak to his role in the organization or the structure of the organization at the time because I wasn't here."

A longtime acquaintance, Carl Reherman, said Brown was very involved in helping set up an emergency operations center in Edmond and assisting in the creation of an emergency contingency plan in the 1970s, while Brown was working for the city manager. At the time, Reherman was a city councilman, and later became mayor.

Reherman said the emergency plan that Brown worked on dealt with potential natural disasters such as tornados and manmade disasters since Tinker Air Force Base and a commercial airport are nearby and a rail line passes through the downtown.

"From my experience with Mike, he not only worked very hard on everything he did, he had very high standards," said Reherman, who also knew Brown when he was a student taking classes from Reherman, who was a professor of political science at Central State University. [so he did the function of the job asserted - again, this makes any discrepency here insignificant - it is not like he said he worked somewhere he did not and learned skills he did not - if that can be proved, his goose is cooked]

"I'm an old Democrat and Mike's a Republican, so we got into a lot of discussions," said Reherman.

Nicol Andrews, deputy strategic director in FEMA's office of public affairs, told Time that while Brown began as an intern, he became an "assistant city manager" with a distinguished record of service.

"According to Mike Brown," Andrews told Time, a large portion of points raised by the magazine are "very inaccurate."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan referred all questions about Brown's resume to FEMA.

McClellan said the White House's earlier statements that Brown retained the president's confidence remain true — but he declined to state that confidence outright.

"I'd leave it where I left it," McClellan said. "We appreciate the work of all those who have been working around the clock to respond to what has been on the worst natural disasters in our nation's history."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-09-fema-timemag_x.htm

NOTE - I think Brown did a horrible job on the post-hurricane evacuation of NOLA and for that he should be fired. I am just commenting above on the legal aspect of the wording of his online bio and WH statements.

[gldstwmn]

That is not a violation of law from a criminal aspect. True negligence is not a crime.

It is most certainly actionable from a civil aspect, no?

[SuzeQuze]

I am unsure lying on your resume is a crime unless the fact that he is Federal Service makes it so - maybe someone can look up the law on that. Actually, his civil service contract probably is a standard Govt. form and it would indicate what if any crime it is to lie. Moreover, has it been proven to be a lie or was it puffing, which is very common on resumes - I am not being difficult here - just curious.

BTW - I feel confident no one in the masses remembers the Gannon thing and when it happened no significant amount of people gave a rat's ass - sad, very true.

Hardly anyone covered the Gannon thing, it was a blip in the press' radar, except for the "crazy liberals". Where do you look up laws? Is there actually a database available online to do that?

[gldstwmn]

Hardly anyone covered the Gannon thing, it was a blip in the press' radar, except for the "crazy liberals". Where do you look up laws? Is there actually a database available online to do that?

I think www.findlaw.com

[amber]

Hardly anyone covered the Gannon thing, it was a blip in the press' radar, except for the "crazy liberals". Where do you look up laws? Is there actually a database available online to do that?
yes, there are several. It's tedious and...difficult...sometimes to wade through them. (sometimes? who am I kidding?)
Lexis Nexus, which you have to subscribe to...
you can also just type in keywords and see what you come up with - like, you can get a states civil code up, but then you have to wade through it to find the appropriate law. And I mean, wade. For all of my research projects, I either had to consult five - 10 different books, or try to narrow things down on Lexis. (I utilized lexis a lot, it was faster and easier). It's true you may be able to find your answers more simply, but, in my experience, that is the exception rather than the norm. The easy things are constitutional rights, (bill of rights). You still may have to wade through numbers and codes, though.
Go with your instinct, just plug in phrases in search engines! :laugh: (seriously)
but Lexis does have some free information....and most federal and state codes are online, you just have to know, or figure out, how to wade. :)
Start with your keywords, girl. :shrug: Sometimes I can't find shizz, but i'm not the most skilled law internet researcher, you know. :p

[irishgrl]

Please site the exact law you refer to with "malfeasance."

I quoted a dictionary definition as I thought was apparent by the pronunciation marks etc...
but to understand just how BADLY Bush and Co bungled, you must first look at the DUTIES:
The President is also the Chief of the Government. That means that he is technically the boss of every government worker.[COLOR=Red][B]Also, the President is the official head of the U.S. military. He can authorize the use of troops overseas without declaring war. To officially declare war, though, he must get the approval of the Congress.

The President is the Chief of the Government, ie TECHNICALLY the BOSS of EVERY Government. That means nothing is done (or not done) based on the Presidents say-so. Monkey Boy dropped the ball. How CONVENIENT to blame the FEMA Chief (scapegoat) for Dumbya's ineptitude.
also, as the head of the US Military, he COULD (and SHOULD) have ordered those military transport ships that were in the gulf to start taking aboard refugees. but nooooooooooooooooooooo not Dumbya.

here is the nolo.com definition of malfeasance:
Doing something that is illegal. This term is often used when a professional or public official commits an illegal act that interferes with the performance of his or her duties. For example, an elected official who accepts a bribe in exchange for political favors has committed malfeasance.
Personally, I think a case can be made for the Bumbler's obligation to corporate interests and the far right religious fundies.

The constitution says this about Impeachment:
Article II Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
here is the definition of misfeasance (nolo.com)
Performing a legal action in an improper way. This term is frequently used when a professional or public official does his job in a way that is not technically illegal, but is nevertheless mistaken or wrong. Here are some examples of misfeasance in a professional context: a lawyer who is mistaken about a deadline and files an important legal document too late, an accountant who makes unintentional errors on a client's tax return or a doctor who writes a prescription and accidentally includes the wrong dosage.
Technically, when you speak of the Administration's response to Katrina, misfeasance is more applicable. It is no less heinous though...

Here is the US Code section that deals with a President's authorization to delegate functions (alluded to above)
TITLE 3 > CHAPTER 4 > § 301 Prev | Next

§ 301. General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations
Release date: 2005-05-17

The President of the United States is authorized to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President
(1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or
(2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President: Provided, That nothing contained herein shall relieve the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions. Such designation and authorization shall be in writing, shall be published in the Federal Register, shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as the President may deem advisable, and shall be revocable at any time by the President in whole or in part.


in other words, the BUCK done stopped

and Jason, you know as well as I do that the US Code is not as detailed as most State codes. but every public official is guided by a CODE OF ETHICS that is supposed to ensure that we are treated decently by the people in charge. Even if there is no actual detailed criminal penalty or definition, any man on the street can see that what happened was actionable. and Bumbler should be GONE. Bribery? Negligence? They are crimes in MY state, arent they in YOURS? There is such a thing as Criminal Negligence in CA....I thought there was everywhere. Most particularly for the Highest official in the land.

[irishgrl]

That is not a violation of law from a criminal aspect. True negligence is not a crime.
REALLY?
nolo.com definition of negligence:
What is negligence?

Negligence is the legal term for any careless behavior that causes, or contributes to, an accident. For example, a person is negligent if he neglected to stop at a stop sign and, as a result, hit your car as you were coming through the intersection.

A person can be considered negligent whenever he or she had a duty to act carefully and failed to do so. (Generally, we all have an obligation to act with ordinary and reasonable care in any given situation -- that is, in a manner that will not foreseeably injure those around us.)
hmmmm all that money the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to reinforce the levies was deliberately denied/underfunded. Bumbler had other priorities, like getting his hands on Iraq's OIL.

here is criminal negligence defined:
Noun 1. criminal negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)

IMO, Monkey Boy was negligent.

[irishgrl]

more from Wikipedia:
Criminal negligence

Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal liability. Some distinguish recklessness from negligence; recklessness is a 'malfeasance' that increases the danger of an act occurring; whereas criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance,'merely allowing otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. This is an example of the difference between a general intent crime and a specific intent crime with recklessness being more specific than criminal negligence. UM, JASON? In some cases this 'nonfeasance' can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids confronting a situation that no reasonable person would ever allow to occur. (can I hear a DUH? boys and girls?) Gross criminal negligence is behaviour which involves a "wanton disregard for human life." Of course, in all these cases if the actus reus or bad act never occurs then there is no crime as both elements are necessary under the criminal common law to sustain a guilty conviction.

Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, willful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment, unless the criminal is insane (OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) (and then in some cases the sentence is indeterminate). Examples of criminally negligent crimes are criminally negligent homicide and negligent endangerment of a child

personally, I cant see Monkey boy actually being intelligent enuff to have a criminal intent (mens rea) but I have NO problem envisioning him to have an actus rea (negligent act) because he is SO dependent upon his advisors about what to do, and I dont think ANY of them saw this coming......

[strandinthewind]

more from Wikipedia:
Criminal negligence

Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal liability. Some distinguish recklessness from negligence; recklessness is a 'malfeasance' that increases the danger of an act occurring; whereas criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance,'merely allowing otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. This is an example of the difference between a general intent crime and a specific intent crime with recklessness being more specific than criminal negligence. UM, JASON? In some cases this 'nonfeasance' can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids confronting a situation that no reasonable person would ever allow to occur. (can I hear a DUH? boys and girls?) Gross criminal negligence is behaviour which involves a "wanton disregard for human life." Of course, in all these cases if the actus reus or bad act never occurs then there is no crime as both elements are necessary under the criminal common law to sustain a guilty conviction.

Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, willful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment, unless the criminal is insane (OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) (and then in some cases the sentence is indeterminate). Examples of criminally negligent crimes are criminally negligent homicide and negligent endangerment of a child

personally, I cant see Monkey boy actually being intelligent enuff to have a criminal intent (mens rea) but I have NO problem envisioning him to have an actus rea (negligent act) because he is SO dependent upon his advisors about what to do, and I dont think ANY of them saw this coming......

Rubbish in court - if you can prove they acted with a careless disregard for human life - you may, and I stress MAY, have a chance - but you cannot demonstrate that here despite all of our outrage - a jury would never believe it nor would any judge let it past the preliminary motions. But, if you want to think they would - call the DOJ in your area and convince them to press charges against W - I suggest you believe in the lottery instead as it has better odds :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

more from Wikipedia:
Criminal negligence

Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal liability. Some distinguish recklessness from negligence; recklessness is a 'malfeasance' that increases the danger of an act occurring; whereas criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance,'merely allowing otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. This is an example of the difference between a general intent crime and a specific intent crime with recklessness being more specific than criminal negligence. UM, JASON? In some cases this 'nonfeasance' can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids confronting a situation that no reasonable person would ever allow to occur. (can I hear a DUH? boys and girls?) Gross criminal negligence is behaviour which involves a "wanton disregard for human life." Of course, in all these cases if the actus reus or bad act never occurs then there is no crime as both elements are necessary under the criminal common law to sustain a guilty conviction.

Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, willful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment, unless the criminal is insane (OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) (and then in some cases the sentence is indeterminate). Examples of criminally negligent crimes are criminally negligent homicide and negligent endangerment of a child

personally, I cant see Monkey boy actually being intelligent enuff to have a criminal intent (mens rea) but I have NO problem envisioning him to have an actus rea (negligent act) because he is SO dependent upon his advisors about what to do, and I dont think ANY of them saw this coming......

Is criminal negligence an impeachable offense? Also, Dubya does not operate on ethics. I would love for a reporter to ask him to define ethics.

[strandinthewind]

Is criminal negligence an impeachable offense? Also, Dubya does not operate on ethics. I would love for a reporter to ask him to define ethics.

A President can be impeached for just about anything but it is never really done for anything but a "high crimes and misdemeanors" because why bother with it if the subsequent conviction cannot go through.

Here is a pretty cool site on it.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

As for criminal negligence - I doubt it could be proven in the instance of Katrina because though FEMA was horrid in the five day delay, they were very good in the other aspects of this. FEMA can also demonstrate that in that five day period they were gathering supplies, coordinating with local authorites, etc. So, while I think the five day delay is inexcuseable, I think it would not constitute any concept of wanton disregard, etc.

Interestingly, this negligence argument is often raised in state and Federal governments in the arenas of public assistance. For example, people often need public assistance immediately - if they die from starvation of disease while waiting for the red tape to clear, was the govt. negligent in fulfilling its duty, etc.

[irishgrl]

Rubbish in court - if you can prove they acted with a careless disregard for human life - you may, and I stress MAY, have a chance - but you cannot demonstrate that here despite all of our outrage - a jury would never believe it nor would any judge let it past the preliminary motions. But, if you want to think they would - call the DOJ in your area and convince them to press charges against W - I suggest you believe in the lottery instead as it has better odds :laugh:
you are talking about specific intent(reckless disregard). I am talking about general intent (misfeasance) which is covered by Criminal Negligence.

Some distinguish recklessness from negligence; recklessness is a 'malfeasance' that increases the danger of an act occurring; whereas criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance,'merely allowing otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. This is an example of the difference between a general intent crime and a specific intent crime with recklessness being more specific than criminal negligence.
I think a case could be made that Dumbya deliberately put those lives at risk by withholding funds that the Army Corps of Engineers requested to fortify those levies. He has consistently underfunded projects that have needed doing for his entire presidency. he is willing to rape the environment, eliminate environmental controls to help his corporate buddies....I cannot believe that a savvy lawyer couldnt NAIL that Eejit.

If Clinton can get impeached for dallying with an intern (where no human lives were at risk, the country was not at risk, you get the picture...)
then Monkey Boy should be impeached for misfeasance. This is crazy! He is a sorry excuse for a public official.

[strandinthewind]

you are talking about specific intent(reckless disregard). I am talking about general intent (misfeasance) which is covered by Criminal Negligence.

If Clinton can get impeached for dallying with an intern (where no human lives were at risk, the country was not at risk, you get the picture...)
then Monkey Boy should be impeached for misfeasance. This is crazy! He is a sorry excuse for a public official.

Bless your stubborn heart - Clinton was not impeached for having sex with ML - nice try at the spin though :wavey:

Clinton actually commited a crime that was very easy to demonstrate - he lied under oath, which was obstruction of justice - he also perpetuated that crime by using his position in the Fed. Govt. to try and cover it up (he got her a job, his let his peeps go out and lie for him in an effort to stay the storm, etc. ) - BTW - I am not debating Clinton's guilt with you as you have no capacity whatsoever to acknowledge that Clinton did anything wrong. But, if you want to debate it, I refer you to the prior debate on Nancy's board.

In the instant case you are trying to assert, you would have to show that W and Co. did essentially nothing to help these people and that just cannot be proved. They will be able to show that during that five days they had people in NOLA and the other effected areas who were saving thousands. They will also be able to prove that in that four or five day period they were assembling the assistance, fulfilling legal requirements, etc. They will also be able to show that the state and local officials were slow to act as well. So, that is not negligence.

In the end, I think the five day wait was unexcuseable, but it is not actionable. Again, if you think so, call your Congressman and call for W's impeachment.

[strandinthewind]

. . .

I think a case could be made that Dumbya deliberately put those lives at risk by withholding funds that the Army Corps of Engineers requested to fortify those levies. He has consistently underfunded projects that have needed doing for his entire presidency. he is willing to rape the environment, eliminate environmental controls to help his corporate buddies....I cannot believe that a savvy lawyer couldnt NAIL that Eejit . . . .

You would have to convict every Pres. of the US that ever was as money is often withheld from various things.

[irishgrl]

sigh....I guess thats true enuff......

I keep hoping that bastid will hang himself with a rope of his own making.

[strandinthewind]

sigh....I guess thats true enuff......

I keep hoping that bastid will hang himself with a rope of his own making.


Oh honey - I wish they would find some smoking gun somwhere - though impeachment is really an academic exercise as the next three in line are worse IMO.

Here is, I think, how it goes:

Vice President - if W goes Cheney will as well

Speaker of the House - worse than W

President Pro Tempore of the Senate - hide all cats from him

Secretary of State - I could live with her

it will never get to the ones below and I think Hiomeland Sec. is now in there somewhere.

Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs

[gldstwmn]

sigh....I guess thats true enuff......

I keep hoping that bastid will hang himself with a rope of his own making.

I think it's coming dear, I really do. Don't give up hope.

[irishgrl]

I may need some hand-holding to hang on... :distress:

[bushesandbriars]

Bless your stubborn heart - Clinton was not impeached for having sex with ML - nice try at the spin though :wavey:

Clinton actually commited a crime that was very easy to demonstrate - he lied under oath, which was obstruction of justice - he also perpetuated that crime by using his position in the Fed. Govt. to try and cover it up (he got her a job, his let his peeps go out and lie for him in an effort to stay the storm, etc. ) - BTW - I am not debating Clinton's guilt with you as you have no capacity whatsoever to acknowledge that Clinton did anything wrong. But, if you want to debate it, I refer you to the prior debate on Nancy's board.

In the instant case you are trying to assert, you would have to show that W and Co. did essentially nothing to help these people and that just cannot be proved. They will be able to show that during that five days they had people in NOLA and the other effected areas who were saving thousands. They will also be able to prove that in that four or five day period they were assembling the assistance, fulfilling legal requirements, etc. They will also be able to show that the state and local officials were slow to act as well. So, that is not negligence.

In the end, I think the five day wait was unexcuseable, but it is not actionable. Again, if you think so, call your Congressman and call for W's impeachment.


Okay, what I want to know is this--why, if you give even the slightest s??t about human life, are you defending Bush? I think his actions are impeachable, and all your babble about criminal negligence is utterly irrelevant because the issue is moral, not legal> And you know it. Where is this high morality the Republicans love to crank on when the chips are down and it's time to help the next guy out a bit?

This is what infuriates me about conservatives; they're the masters of spin, and the first thing they do is accuse everyone else of spinning issues. I find it amusing you accuse Irishgrl of having no capacity to acknowledge Clinton did anything wrong, when you seem to have no capacity to do that with Bush in this instance, because if you did, you would not be here defending him, watering down what he did with long cut-and-pasted passages from legal journals. And Clinton may have officially been charged with the Whitewater scandal, but the reason people went with it and scented blood on the tracks in the first place was because of the Lewinsky scandal. You pretending otherwise is a mixture of disingenuousness and good-old fashioned denial. And, speaking of spin, did you consider anything she said, or did you just rush to rip her argument apart? Isn't that part of spin--never listening to the other person? Which is the conservative method: Pander to people's prejudices and fears, and you can get them to behave any way you want. Give 'em a scapegoat.

And all this about neligence--this is almost as good as your whole thing about how freedom of speech isn't provided for by the Constitution. I'd like to point out something relevant you seem to me to miss all the time--the bloody government exists to serve its people, not the other way around. We aren't a business that the fiscal conservatives run. We aren't chattel. Freedom of speech is, for the record, provided for--the Constitution doesn't grant rights to its people; it outlines limitations on the government's powers and specifies what issues are private matters and how rights are to be recognized, which you should know with your penchant for quoting legal documents. How you got around "abridging the freedom of speech" is a masterpiece of spin philosophy.

It strikes me, reading a number of your posts, that you don't pay any actual attention to what other people say, but prefer to argue from a skewed point of view all the time, something which I have never before considered my business, except that this time it struck a chord in me that that is precisely what conservatives do; it seems to be an inherent trait. Shout the other guy down. Poison the well. Flip-flop when it serves. You'll perhaps notice how damn quick the conservatives were this time to evoke the First Amendment, yes? Apparently what Babs said would only be "un-American" if it had come out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. If there were a Most Useless First Lady in History contest, she and dear Laura would split the vote. Even Nancy Reagan could usually keep her mouth shut.

"By the people, of the people, and for the people"--ring a bell? The government has a moral, ethical, fiscal, and political resposibility to its people. Something Republicans have no concept about whatsoever, apparently. I mean, the people hit by Katrina all just a bunch of crackers and poor black trash, so who gives a damn whether they live or die, right? It isn't as though they're human, and think of all the money it'll save! But, for the record, negligence is a prosecutable crime, and when you say it isn't, you're goo old-fashioned wrong. People sue stores when they slip and fall for negligence. People who neglect their children--and what Bush did is no different--are brought up on criminal charges, and the charge on the sheet is criminal negligence. It seems to me, wading through your posts, that you're trying to psuedo-intellect your way out of it, not, I think, because you even especially believe in this president, but because you backed yourself into a corner and would rather defend his actions than admit you were wrong about anything. Maybe not. But that's how it comes across to me. And the never-admit-you're-wrong tack seems the method this whole bloody adminstration and his legions of supporters are taking. Bush could blow the damn world up, and they'd still support it. And so would a number of people, because he's that brilliant at appealing to what is worst in human nature.

So my other question is this: Is it stupidity or actual evil leading people to defend Bush? Or just hypocrisy? Because as far as I can tell, a person must be one of the three to think this is all right. And I want to know, since you so bravely stuck your neck out to defend him. I'm not saying you are, and I'm not a saint. No one is. But I want to know, because I could never in a million years justify a "president" who would conduct himself as Bush has, even if it were the man I had voted for. I would say I was wrong, because I would be wrong. So why don't Bush's supporters? Because they just hate to see the tax dollars going to help the people who need them? Why not say, "We're wrong about this. We're wrong about Iraq. We're going to do things differently. We apologize for causing needless suffering. We want to make it right." What's wrong with that? Is it macho bull****--oh, we musn't look weak in the face of the world--or what? I watched Bush in New Orleans; you could see him cringe every time a poor person touched him. Why defend that? Opinions may have been dismissive and low of the U.S. before in some circles, but now we're actually hated. And not just by the Taliban or bin Laden. I'm not religious, but this quote has been in my head for days, and since conservatives are so hot on the Bible, here's a fire and brimstone one from Matthew, 23:28: "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Is that bit left out of the conservative version?

The U.S. has turned into this hard, dog-eat-dog place since Bush came on the scene. It started with the 2000 campaign and the Florida fiasco, and it's gone right on. What happened to: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? Or are they just statistics and tax dollars and mathematical probabilties sent to complicate the lives of the well-to-do? Do you ever get sick of social Darwinism? Shall we eat the poor, a la Swift? I'm curious to know if you really believe, from the very most honest and compassionate place in yourself, that what Bush did was not criminal, and that what Clinton did was worse? And I don't care about the law; I'm telling you now if you quote it to me I won't read it, because I know better, and I don't give a damn what the law says. The law is not necessarily the truth. I'm asking you as a moral question, because this is a moral issue as to why everyone whether was so slow, why the response was limited, and how it would have gone down if it had happened in, oh, I don't know, Kennebunkport or Houston. He had a duty to provide for those people; they were suffering and dying and needed the wherewithal of the government, which exists for this purpose, to do its job. People don't have governments because we love them; we have them because they're supposed to guide, to protect, to lead, to organize. To pretend otherwise is slimy. And I honestly believe, after reading your responses in this thread, you'd argue the sky is orange if you thought you could win, and pretend the other person's opinion is no more than liberal wishy-washiness. Except all you've written discounts the human beings. Harry Connick, Jr. was in New Orleans before FEMA. It's a different kind of spin you indulge in, the sort that reduces any issue not to its ethical or moral core, but to who can out-clever the other, who can win, who can pick little technicalities apart. Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. Death is not a statistical factor to add into the read-sheet when it's your death, your child's death, your loved ones.

And whatever else may or may not be true, I know this much: Before the government has a duty to make money for the chosen ones, it has a duty to protect its people. I doubt that five days would be "not negligence" if it had been your family drowning down there, or wading through ****, or dying of thirst, however intellectually lofty you think your argument is.

[gldstwmn]

Secretary of Transportation


Mineta's a Democrat. I'll take him. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Okay, what I want to know is this--why, if you give even the slightest s??t about human life, are you defending Bush? I think his actions are impeachable, and all your babble about criminal negligence is utterly irrelevant because the issue is moral, not legal> And you know it. Where is this high morality the Republicans love to crank on when the chips are down and it's time to help the next guy out a bit?

This is what infuriates me about conservatives; they're the masters of spin, and the first thing they do is accuse everyone else of spinning issues. I find it amusing you accuse Irishgrl of having no capacity to acknowledge Clinton did anything wrong, when you seem to have no capacity to do that with Bush in this instance, because if you did, you would not be here defending him, watering down what he did with long cut-and-pasted passages from legal journals. And Clinton may have officially been charged with the Whitewater scandal, but the reason people went with it and scented blood on the tracks in the first place was because of the Lewinsky scandal. You pretending otherwise is a mixture of disingenuousness and good-old fashioned denial. And, speaking of spin, did you consider anything she said, or did you just rush to rip her argument apart? Isn't that part of spin--never listening to the other person? Which is the conservative method: Pander to people's prejudices and fears, and you can get them to behave any way you want. Give 'em a scapegoat.

And all this about neligence--this is almost as good as your whole thing about how freedom of speech isn't provided for by the Constitution. I'd like to point out something relevant you seem to me to miss all the time--the bloody government exists to serve its people, not the other way around. We aren't a business that the fiscal conservatives run. We aren't chattel. Freedom of speech is, for the record, provided for--the Constitution doesn't grant rights to its people; it outlines limitations on the government's powers and specifies what issues are private matters and how rights are to be recognized, which you should know with your penchant for quoting legal documents. How you got around "abridging the freedom of speech" is a masterpiece of spin philosophy.

It strikes me, reading a number of your posts, that you don't pay any actual attention to what other people say, but prefer to argue from a skewed point of view all the time, something which I have never before considered my business, except that this time it struck a chord in me that that is precisely what conservatives do; it seems to be an inherent trait. Shout the other guy down. Poison the well. Flip-flop when it serves. You'll perhaps notice how damn quick the conservatives were this time to evoke the First Amendment, yes? Apparently what Babs said would only be "un-American" if it had come out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. If there were a Most Useless First Lady in History contest, she and dear Laura would split the vote. Even Nancy Reagan could usually keep her mouth shut.

"By the people, of the people, and for the people"--ring a bell? The government has a moral, ethical, fiscal, and political resposibility to its people. Something Republicans have no concept about whatsoever, apparently. I mean, the people hit by Katrina all just a bunch of crackers and poor black trash, so who gives a damn whether they live or die, right? It isn't as though they're human, and think of all the money it'll save! But, for the record, negligence is a prosecutable crime, and when you say it isn't, you're goo old-fashioned wrong. People sue stores when they slip and fall for negligence. People who neglect their children--and what Bush did is no different--are brought up on criminal charges, and the charge on the sheet is criminal negligence. It seems to me, wading through your posts, that you're trying to psuedo-intellect your way out of it, not, I think, because you even especially believe in this president, but because you backed yourself into a corner and would rather defend his actions than admit you were wrong about anything. Maybe not. But that's how it comes across to me. And the never-admit-you're-wrong tack seems the method this whole bloody adminstration and his legions of supporters are taking. Bush could blow the damn world up, and they'd still support it. And so would a number of people, because he's that brilliant at appealing to what is worst in human nature.

So my other question is this: Is it stupidity or actual evil leading people to defend Bush? Or just hypocrisy? Because as far as I can tell, a person must be one of the three to think this is all right. And I want to know, since you so bravely stuck your neck out to defend him. I'm not saying you are, and I'm not a saint. No one is. But I want to know, because I could never in a million years justify a "president" who would conduct himself as Bush has, even if it were the man I had voted for. I would say I was wrong, because I would be wrong. So why don't Bush's supporters? Because they just hate to see the tax dollars going to help the people who need them? Why not say, "We're wrong about this. We're wrong about Iraq. We're going to do things differently. We apologize for causing needless suffering. We want to make it right." What's wrong with that? Is it macho bull****--oh, we musn't look weak in the face of the world--or what? I watched Bush in New Orleans; you could see him cringe every time a poor person touched him. Why defend that? Opinions may have been dismissive and low of the U.S. before in some circles, but now we're actually hated. And not just by the Taliban or bin Laden. I'm not religious, but this quote has been in my head for days, and since conservatives are so hot on the Bible, here's a fire and brimstone one from Matthew, 23:28: "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Is that bit left out of the conservative version?

The U.S. has turned into this hard, dog-eat-dog place since Bush came on the scene. It started with the 2000 campaign and the Florida fiasco, and it's gone right on. What happened to: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? Or are they just statistics and tax dollars and mathematical probabilties sent to complicate the lives of the well-to-do? Do you ever get sick of social Darwinism? Shall we eat the poor, a la Swift? I'm curious to know if you really believe, from the very most honest and compassionate place in yourself, that what Bush did was not criminal, and that what Clinton did was worse? And I don't care about the law; I'm telling you now if you quote it to me I won't read it, because I know better, and I don't give a damn what the law says. The law is not necessarily the truth. I'm asking you as a moral question, because this is a moral issue as to why everyone whether was so slow, why the response was limited, and how it would have gone down if it had happened in, oh, I don't know, Kennebunkport or Houston. He had a duty to provide for those people; they were suffering and dying and needed the wherewithal of the government, which exists for this purpose, to do its job. People don't have governments because we love them; we have them because they're supposed to guide, to protect, to lead, to organize. To pretend otherwise is slimy. And I honestly believe, after reading your responses in this thread, you'd argue the sky is orange if you thought you could win, and pretend the other person's opinion is no more than liberal wishy-washiness. Except all you've written discounts the human beings. Harry Connick, Jr. was in New Orleans before FEMA. It's a different kind of spin you indulge in, the sort that reduces any issue not to its ethical or moral core, but to who can out-clever the other, who can win, who can pick little technicalities apart. Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. Death is not a statistical factor to add into the read-sheet when it's your death, your child's death, your loved ones.

And whatever else may or may not be true, I know this much: Before the government has a duty to make money for the chosen ones, it has a duty to protect its people. I doubt that five days would be "not negligence" if it had been your family drowning down there, or wading through ****, or dying of thirst, however intellectually lofty you think your argument is.

Do me a favor and put me on block as I seem to be so offensive with the truth. Thanks.

Also, my brother was down there. He got out and then returned on his own to help rescue people while shots were being fired all around him. I also have not heard from several of my friends from there. So, I'll thank you not to comment on that any further before you know what you are talking about - though you apparently have a knack for that considering the words you put in my mouth in your ridiculous post.

[strandinthewind]

Mineta's a Democrat. I'll take him. :laugh:

Well, we have our work cut out for us to get that far down the list :laugh: But, if your willing so am I despite what bushesandbriars erroneously thinks :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

Do me a favor and put me on block as I seem to be so offensive with the truth. Thanks.

Also, my brother was down there. He got out and then returned on his own to help rescue people while shots were being fired all around him. I also have not heard from several of my friends from there. So, I'll thank you not to comment on that any further before you know what you are talking about - though you apparently have a knack for that considering the words you put in my mouth in your ridiculous post.

I'm sorry to hear about you not hearing from your friends. :( The story you told me about that woman's miscarriage haunts me. Do you know her name and if she survived?

[strandinthewind]

I'm sorry to hear about you not hearing from your friends. :( The story you told me about that woman's miscarriage haunts me. Do you know her name and if she survived?

No - I do not. From what I understand, she was evacuated to Houston and I have not heard any reports in the media about people dying there, though it seems likely some did. I also think they probably took her immediately to a hospital once she arrived. I know many were taken to hospitals - that is why I say that. Sadly, my bother was so overwhelmed with just helping people that after the shock, she was just one of so many, which is terrifying.