Full Version: Department of Homeland Security - Failure?
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 2 2005, 11:21 AM)
QUOTE(nemov @ Sep 2 2005, 05:32 AM)
There seems to be a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on with this disaster. I am not exactly sure what kind of expectation exists to completely evacuate an entire city in a flood after an area has been ravaged by a hurricane. Evidently, Americans that have never experienced a hurricane thought supplies would start coming to New Orleans the day after the hurricane.
I completely disagree with you, but I don't see that I'll make very much headway on that so I'll just ask a question instead. We have this nifty Department of Homeland Security which is supposed to excel in disaster response, coordinating communication and efforts, etc. We've had them for 4 years and we've paid billions of dollars for them. What have we bought exactly? What do you expect from your tax dollars?
Keith Olbermann usually tries to keep Countdown light with a large twist of humor. Yet tonight, in a piece reproduced on Countdown’s page, he was livid. For once someone isn’t giving Bush an undeserved hall pass. I snipped this article as best I could, but you should read the whole thing. It’s quite an indictment.
QUOTE
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said it all, starting his news briefing Saturday afternoon: Louisiana is a city that is largely underwater...'
<snip>
The seeming definition of our time and our leaders had been their insistence on slashing federal budgets for projects that might’ve saved New Orleans. The seeming characterization of our government that it was on vacation when the city was lost, and could barely tear itself away from commemorating V.J. Day and watching Monty Python's Flying Circus, to at least pretend to get back to work. The seeming identification of these hapless bureaucrats: their pathetic use of the future tense in terms of relief they could’ve brought last Monday and Tuesday — like the President, whose statements have looked like they’re being transmitted to us by some kind of four-day tape-delay.
<snip>
It [the federal government] has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.
Mr. Bush has now twice insisted that, ‘we are not satisfied,’ with the response to the manifold tragedies along the Gulf Coast. I wonder which "we" he thinks he's speaking for on this point. Perhaps it's the administration, although we still don't know where some of them are. Anybody seen the Vice President lately? The man whose message this time last year was, 'I'll Protect You, The Other Guy Will Let You Die'?
<snip>
For many of this country's citizens, the mantra has been — as we were taught in Social Studies it should always be — whether or not I voted for this President — he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to '08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government — our government — 'New Orleans.'
For him, it is a shame — in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there, and he might not have looked so much like a 21st Century Marie Antoinette. All that was needed was just a quick "I'm not satisfied with my government's response." Instead of hiding behind phrases like "no one could have foreseen," had he only remembered Winston Churchill's quote from the 1930's. ‘The responsibility,’ of government, Churchill told the British Parliament ‘for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence.’
<snip>
The seeming definition of our time and our leaders had been their insistence on slashing federal budgets for projects that might’ve saved New Orleans. The seeming characterization of our government that it was on vacation when the city was lost, and could barely tear itself away from commemorating V.J. Day and watching Monty Python's Flying Circus, to at least pretend to get back to work. The seeming identification of these hapless bureaucrats: their pathetic use of the future tense in terms of relief they could’ve brought last Monday and Tuesday — like the President, whose statements have looked like they’re being transmitted to us by some kind of four-day tape-delay.
<snip>
It [the federal government] has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.
Mr. Bush has now twice insisted that, ‘we are not satisfied,’ with the response to the manifold tragedies along the Gulf Coast. I wonder which "we" he thinks he's speaking for on this point. Perhaps it's the administration, although we still don't know where some of them are. Anybody seen the Vice President lately? The man whose message this time last year was, 'I'll Protect You, The Other Guy Will Let You Die'?
<snip>
For many of this country's citizens, the mantra has been — as we were taught in Social Studies it should always be — whether or not I voted for this President — he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to '08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government — our government — 'New Orleans.'
For him, it is a shame — in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there, and he might not have looked so much like a 21st Century Marie Antoinette. All that was needed was just a quick "I'm not satisfied with my government's response." Instead of hiding behind phrases like "no one could have foreseen," had he only remembered Winston Churchill's quote from the 1930's. ‘The responsibility,’ of government, Churchill told the British Parliament ‘for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence.’
Keith Olbermann Commentary, 09-05-05
On yesterday’s Meet the Press the usually tough, but unflappable Tim Russert seemed annoyed with Chertoff.
QUOTE
MR. RUSSERT: People were stunned by a comment the president of the United States made on Wednesday, Mr. Secretary. He said, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." How could the president be so wrong, be so misinformed?
<snip>
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Secretary, you say prestaged. People were sent to the Convention Center. There was no water, no food, no beds, no authorities there. There was no planning.
<snip
MR. RUSSERT: Well, Mr. Secretary, you said--hold on. Mr. Secretary, there was no food or water at the Superdome, either. And I want to stay on this because...
SEC'Y CHERTOFF: Well, my understanding--well...
<snip>
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Secretary, you say prestaged. People were sent to the Convention Center. There was no water, no food, no beds, no authorities there. There was no planning.
<snip
MR. RUSSERT: Well, Mr. Secretary, you said--hold on. Mr. Secretary, there was no food or water at the Superdome, either. And I want to stay on this because...
SEC'Y CHERTOFF: Well, my understanding--well...
Meet the Press Transcript, 09-04-05
I was writing this for the accountability topic but it was closed when I attempted to post it. I will post it here, for what its worth.
3. Does the administration hold a degree of responsibility for the lack of preparation in LA? Why or why not?
1. By making FEMA responsible for disasters such as terrorist attacks, have we stretched our resources too thin? Should the department return to dealing with solely natural disasters?
2. Should the national guard be more focused on state protection during hurricane season than on federal missions such as Iraq?
Despite the questions posted for discussion, a lot of the discussion here has focused on the responsibility of state and local government versus the federal government as it the failures of one could justify the failures of the others. In previous posts I have acknowledged some of the failures of the state and city officials but that in no way lessens the failures at the federal level and, except for residents of the 3 effected states, ADers are most responsible for the performance of the federal government.
If one wishes to pursue the local responsibility, however, it is important not to just identify the local actors just as Republicans or Democrats but to pay some attention to philosophies of government. Louisiana Democrats in modern times have tended to be very conservative and certainly aren't liberals. Their attitude toward the role of government is more like Republicans than even SLC Democrats. Senator Breaux voted with the Republicans much of the time and even Senator Mary Landrieu has made an effort to not come across as a liberal.
The mayor was a Republican shortly before he announced that he was running for mayor. I'm not sure whether that implies he was a progressive still clinging to the Lincoln/TR tradition and opposing the positions of conservative Southern Democrats or just an opportunist. If ADers know more about his philosophy of government, I would be interested in hearing it. I'm also ignorant of the political philosophy of Governor Blanco but I'm relatively certain she had to campaign as a conservative in a state like Lousianna.
Liberals and progressives believe in a robust public sector that can lift the poor and unfortunate and act decisively in domestic crises. Modern conservatives believe in a lean public sector focussed on "defense." Bush's cuts to the levee reinforcement, failure to follow through with planning for a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane, and failure to support the wetlands restoration were not inconsistent with the philosophy of many of his supporters. (Perhaps his appointment of incompetents has nothing to do with conservatism). The fact that the mayor and governor did not follow through with a local alternative also owes much to the conservative political milieu that they were operating within.
To avoid confusion, the questions for this topic are:
1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not ?
2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?
3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?
4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
3. Does the administration hold a degree of responsibility for the lack of preparation in LA? Why or why not?
1. By making FEMA responsible for disasters such as terrorist attacks, have we stretched our resources too thin? Should the department return to dealing with solely natural disasters?
2. Should the national guard be more focused on state protection during hurricane season than on federal missions such as Iraq?
Despite the questions posted for discussion, a lot of the discussion here has focused on the responsibility of state and local government versus the federal government as it the failures of one could justify the failures of the others. In previous posts I have acknowledged some of the failures of the state and city officials but that in no way lessens the failures at the federal level and, except for residents of the 3 effected states, ADers are most responsible for the performance of the federal government.
If one wishes to pursue the local responsibility, however, it is important not to just identify the local actors just as Republicans or Democrats but to pay some attention to philosophies of government. Louisiana Democrats in modern times have tended to be very conservative and certainly aren't liberals. Their attitude toward the role of government is more like Republicans than even SLC Democrats. Senator Breaux voted with the Republicans much of the time and even Senator Mary Landrieu has made an effort to not come across as a liberal.
QUOTE
She has spent most of her six years in the Senate making sure she doesn’t come across as too liberal. She votes with Bush three-quarters of the time and supported his tax cut, which mostly rewards upper-income voters. Her one major break with the White House was over John Ashcroft’s confirmation as attorney general; she opposed him for the job.
Campaign Article The mayor was a Republican shortly before he announced that he was running for mayor. I'm not sure whether that implies he was a progressive still clinging to the Lincoln/TR tradition and opposing the positions of conservative Southern Democrats or just an opportunist. If ADers know more about his philosophy of government, I would be interested in hearing it. I'm also ignorant of the political philosophy of Governor Blanco but I'm relatively certain she had to campaign as a conservative in a state like Lousianna.
Liberals and progressives believe in a robust public sector that can lift the poor and unfortunate and act decisively in domestic crises. Modern conservatives believe in a lean public sector focussed on "defense." Bush's cuts to the levee reinforcement, failure to follow through with planning for a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane, and failure to support the wetlands restoration were not inconsistent with the philosophy of many of his supporters. (Perhaps his appointment of incompetents has nothing to do with conservatism). The fact that the mayor and governor did not follow through with a local alternative also owes much to the conservative political milieu that they were operating within.
To avoid confusion, the questions for this topic are:
1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not ?
2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?
3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?
4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 6 2005, 02:04 AM)
Keith Olbermann usually tries to keep Countdown light with a large twist of humor. Yet tonight, in a piece reproduced on Countdown’s page, he was livid. For once someone isn’t giving Bush an undeserved hall pass. I snipped this article as best I could, but you should read the whole thing. It’s quite an indictment.
QUOTE
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said it all, starting his news briefing Saturday afternoon: Louisiana is a city that is largely underwater...'
The political point-scoring here is absolutely ridiculous. Are we saying now that Michael Chertoff, who graduated magna cum laude from both Harvard undergrad and Harvard Law, doesn't know that Louisiana is a state? Or, since this quote appears in exactly zero transcripts anywhere on the 'net (a whopping one Google hit), perhaps Olbermann or someone just made it up. Or, perhaps it doesn't matter, and the real story is what are we doing about a big natural disaster.
I totally agree that Chertoff and even the Bush administration should be under the microscope right now, but I still lay the majority of the blame with state and local government. At least that's who I'm electing here in Chicago to manage my city. Frankly I'd be a little mad if the feds came in here after some flood and pre-empted local control. We've booted mayors out for not getting the snow removed fast enough around here.
1. By making FEMA responsible for disasters such as terrorist attacks, have we stretched our resources too thin? Should the department return to dealing with solely natural disasters?
No and no. The jobs to do in either an attack or natural disaster are largely the same - law and order and logistics - so it makes sense to have one agency manage them.
The problem with this whole local / national control issue is that we are going to lose either way. Blind faith in the feds will keep individuals from responsibly taking care of themselves (and holding local officials responsible). On the other hand, Congress won't be able to resist funding "first responders,"resulting in misguided pork funding for local police which will be mis-spent or have too many strings attached, a la Bill Clinton's "100,000 police officers."
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 6 2005, 12:36 AM)
No it doesn't Hobbes, that is exactly my point. What is the biggest thing we are afraid of in regards to terrorism? It isn't some amateur setting off a bomb in a backpack it is a coordinated attack that involves biologicals or nuclear weapons. I'd say that the scope of that is roughly equivalent or greater than this.
It is that doomsday scenario this department was created to respond to and they have proven that they aren't up to the task
It is that doomsday scenario this department was created to respond to and they have proven that they aren't up to the task
As usual, then, we are in agreement but talking around each other. I only mention scale and scope to make sure everyone understands the magnititude of the task that hit them. Yes, this should be something they were prepared for, but also that experiencing something like this, for the first time, there are going to be problems and delays in response. I think it only logical to assume that having everything under one department should improve the ability to respond in such circumstances, not undermine it...which is one of the reasong the department was created, with bipartisan support, to begin with.
QUOTE
The rest of the country will probably fare a lot like New Orleans when put to the test.
Yes, they would...and that is one of the messages we should take from this. Hopefully, the solutions will not be isolated to New Orleans...if that is the case, we will be doomed to let history repeat itself.QUOTE
Well first of all I disagree with you, the local and state levels were responding to the best of their abilities, it just wasn't enough.
Oh, I agree with you...they were responding to the best of their abilities. I'm not attempting to blame them for the response...they were simply overwhelmed. The problem, though, is that the process seemed to be to have the federal agencies work through them when providing assistance. Since they broke down, the federal response also broke down, in a domino effect.
QUOTE
Further, the federal agencies should have been mobilized days before they were and someone should have come in to take charge. But even if I did agree with you, it is still (per this document) the responsibility of the DHS to make sure that local governments have on-scene incident command structures as part of their preparedness role.
I think forces were mobilized, but I don't think that's really even the issue. I'm also not sure it was the responsibility of the DHS to provide them...but I think it certainly wll be in the future. That one step would have resolved must of the issues seen (getting water to those stranded at the Superdome, convention center, and bridge, for example).QUOTE
QUOTE(Hobbes)
How many times do you think the plan was ever gone through in an exercise? None, I'll bet. This is what I am talking about when I say that disaster preparedness and response needs to be given a much higher level of priority, at all levels.
You are probably right, which leaves me wondering again what our billions of dollars are paying for and what these 183,000 people are doing.
This is clearly a failing of DHS. I don't know if such emphasis was in the works, or not even thought of...but it should be. I suspect there is concern about throwing the country into a panic, and the economic impact that might cause. Whatever the reason, it needs to be fixed. I could see having a permanent 'rvacuee camp' created somewhere, probably the midwest, so that people would have somewhere to go or be taken in such circumstances. It should include a plan to mobilize all necessary governmental and civilian resources (such as doctors, etc) to respond to a major disaster. Suppose this had been a large scale terrorist attack, and all those being evacuated from New Orleans were therefore all poisoned or injured, and not just homeless? I don't think we're remotely close to being able to adequately handle that. Ironically, I think one of the reasons for this is that all of the resources have been focused on prevention of terrorist attack, rather than preparedness. I guess not having one at all is preferable to being able to deal with one, especially given limited resources, since terrorist attacks are preventable, while hurricanes and earthquakes are not. However, the plans would be much the same, so, since natural disasters aren't preventable, we should be better prepared to handle them.
TOPIC REMINDER:
1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?
2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?
3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?
4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?
2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?
3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?
4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
[b]1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?
Yes, I think the aftermath of the hurricane has shown a major flaw in homeland security. There has now been reports from New Orleans of FEMA actually thwarting relief efforts. These need to be seriously investigated and if proved true, heads need to roll.
For example this from Aron Broussard - President of Jefferson Parish, LA.
[QUOTE]MR. BROUSSARD: Sir, they were told like me, every single day, "The cavalry's coming," on a federal level, "The cavalry's coming, the cavalry's coming, the cavalry's coming." I have just begun to hear the hoofs of the cavalry. The cavalry's still not here yet, but I've begun to hear the hoofs, and we're almost a week out.
Let me give you just three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA--we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, "Come get the fuel right away." When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. "FEMA says don't give you the fuel." Yesterday--yesterday--FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards on our line and says, "No one is getting near these lines." Sheriff Harry Lee said that if America--American government would have responded like Wal-Mart has responded, we wouldn't be in this crisis.
But I want to thank Governor Blanco for all she's done and all her leadership. She sent in the National Guard. I just repaired a breach on my side of the 17th Street canal that the secretary didn't foresee, a 300-foot breach. I just completed it yesterday with convoys of National Guard and local parish workers and levee board people. It took us two and a half days working 24/7. I just closed it.
full transcript from Meet the press on 09/04.05 is at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179790/
2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?
I don't think so. I use as example the response in Florida to the hurricanes they have suffered in recent years. I cannot recall relief efforts ever taking so long for FL residents as it has in LA,MS and AL. Why I wonder can we respond so well in other areas which are prone to hurricanes and fail so miserably here?
3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?
While I have to admit there are a few useful programs sponsored by DHS, I think the department is more a of a department in name rather than substance. To me it seems more a feel good program as has been typical of our government throughout history. It seems our political parties have more interest in a show of having done something rather than in the actual doing of it. This leaves many programs as paper tigers. Examples are our war on drugs, Environmental policies and others. They make people think that something is being done while the biggest thing done is the bandying about by politicians who proclaim the greatness of the programs.
4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
The first thing is to get politics out of Homeland Security. We cannot be secure in our country so long as the policies by which we rely upon for protection are subject to the tides of politics.
Politicians are the least efficient means to accomplish anything useful and lasting.
In no other arena can we find more waste than in political programs. The goal gets lost in the rhetoric and graff.
Where the answer to the problems lies I have not a clue but I am sure that the business as usual will produce the same usual results.
4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
Well, this is a good start. I'm surprised it took them a week.
Looks like Brown's resume wasn't quite accurate either, like the part about managing emergency services. Time Magazine link
And that's not all...
I take back anything nice I may have said about "brownie" on this board. Unbelieveable.
Well, this is a good start. I'm surprised it took them a week.
QUOTE(fox news)
Michael Brown is being removed from his role managing Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
Brown is being sent back to Washington from Baton Rouge, where he was the primary official overseeing the federal government’s response to the disaster, FOX News has confirmed. Brown will be replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, who was overseeing New Orleans relief and rescue efforts.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is scheduled to hold a press conference in Baton Rouge at 1:45 EDT. It’s expected Chertoff will then announce the decision about Brown.
Brown is being sent back to Washington from Baton Rouge, where he was the primary official overseeing the federal government’s response to the disaster, FOX News has confirmed. Brown will be replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, who was overseeing New Orleans relief and rescue efforts.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is scheduled to hold a press conference in Baton Rouge at 1:45 EDT. It’s expected Chertoff will then announce the decision about Brown.
Looks like Brown's resume wasn't quite accurate either, like the part about managing emergency services. Time Magazine link
QUOTE
Before joining FEMA, his only previous stint in emergency management, according to his bio posted on FEMA's website, was "serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight." The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him." Brown did do a good job at his humble position, however, according to his boss. "Yes. Mike Brown worked for me. He was my administrative assistant. He was a student at Central State University," recalls former city manager Bill Dashner. "Mike used to handle a lot of details. Every now and again I'd ask him to write me a speech. He was very loyal. He was always on time. He always had on a suit and a starched white shirt."
That line about the "starched shirt" is priceless.And that's not all...
QUOTE
Under the heading of "Professional Associations and Memberships" on FindLaw, Brown states that from 1983 to the present he has been director of the Oklahoma Christian Home, a nursing home in Edmond. But an administrator with the Home told TIME that Brown is "not a person that anyone here is familiar with." She says there was a board of directors until a couple of years ago, but she couldn't find anyone who recalled him being on it. According to FEMA's Andrews, Brown said "he's never claimed to be the director of the home. He was on the board of directors, or governors of the nursing home." However, a veteran employee at the center since 1981 says Brown "was never director here, was never on the board of directors, was never executive director. He was never here in any capacity. I never heard his name mentioned here."
<snip>
Brown's FindLaw profile lists a wide range of areas of legal practice, from estate planning to family law to sports. However, one former colleague does not remember Brown's work as sterling. Stephen Jones, a prominent Oklahoma lawyer who was lead defense attorney on the Timothy McVeigh case, was Brown's boss for two-and-a-half years in the early '80s. "He did mainly transactional work, not litigation," says Jones. "There was a feeling that he was not serious and somewhat shallow." Jones says when his law firm split, Brown was one of two staffers who was let go.
<snip>
Brown's FindLaw profile lists a wide range of areas of legal practice, from estate planning to family law to sports. However, one former colleague does not remember Brown's work as sterling. Stephen Jones, a prominent Oklahoma lawyer who was lead defense attorney on the Timothy McVeigh case, was Brown's boss for two-and-a-half years in the early '80s. "He did mainly transactional work, not litigation," says Jones. "There was a feeling that he was not serious and somewhat shallow." Jones says when his law firm split, Brown was one of two staffers who was let go.
I take back anything nice I may have said about "brownie" on this board. Unbelieveable.
Carlitos
I take back anything nice I may have said about "brownie" on this board. Unbelieveable.
Carlitos, I could have told you this back on Sept. 5(4 days ago), from this thread
Yes I enjoyed your link from FEMA. I am sure they could make one of their own look like a prince instead of a frog.
Check about the Kansas City Star(conservative leaning newspaper) has to say about his qualifications.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...on/12556548.htm
QUOTE
WASHINGTON — From failed Republican congressional candidate to ousted “czar” of an Arabian horse association, there was little in Michael Brown’s background to prepare him for Hurricane Katrina.
He provoked some of it when he conceded that agency didn’t know that thousands of refugees were trapped at New Orleans’ convention center without food or water until officials heard it on the news.
“He’s done a hell of a job, because I’m not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm,” said Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief. “The world that this man operated in and the focus of this work does not in any way translate to this. He does not have the experience.”
Brown ran for Congress in 1988 and won 27 percent of the vote against Democratic incumbent Glenn English.
He spent the 1990s as judges and stewards commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to ensure that horse-show judges followed the rules.
Brown’s ticket to FEMA was Joe Allbaugh, President Bush’s 2000 campaign manager and a longtime friend of Brown’s in Oklahoma.
Brown told several association officials that if Bush were elected, he would be in line for a good job. When Allbaugh, who managed Bush’s campaign, took over FEMA in 2001, he took Brown with him as general counsel.
And how did he get his job as general counsel to FEMA?
http://business.bostonherald.com/businessN...rticleid=100857
QUOTE
The Oklahoman got the job through an old college friend who at the time was heading up FEMA.
Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh
And he could have done worse? Pray tell, how much worse?
And Michael Brown was on top of the situation wasn't he?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/national...ial/03fema.html
QUOTE
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 - On Thursday night, Michael D. Brown, the federal government's point man for managing the response to Hurricane Katrina, made a remarkable confession on live television.
Speaking of the thousands stranded at the convention center in New Orleans without food or water, Mr. Brown said that his agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had just learned of their plight.
CNN's Paula Zahn was incredulous. "Sir," she said, "you aren't just telling me you just learned that the folks at the convention center didn't have food and water until today, are you? You had no idea they were completely cut off?"
"Paula," Mr. Brown replied unequivocally, "the federal government did not even know about the convention center people until today."
The convention center has been on national tv for at least 1 day if not more. And he didn't even know about it.
Now how could Bush have picked a worse man.
Even a blind person could have seen than he was only a political hackand only had the job because of his Republican connections and don't forget his college roommate.
This was a no-brainer from the start.
Welcome to the enlighten crowd, Carlitos
QUOTE
I take back anything nice I may have said about "brownie" on this board. Unbelieveable.
Carlitos, I could have told you this back on Sept. 5(4 days ago), from this thread
QUOTE
Yes I enjoyed your link from FEMA. I am sure they could make one of their own look like a prince instead of a frog.
Check about the Kansas City Star(conservative leaning newspaper) has to say about his qualifications.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...on/12556548.htm
QUOTE
WASHINGTON — From failed Republican congressional candidate to ousted “czar” of an Arabian horse association, there was little in Michael Brown’s background to prepare him for Hurricane Katrina.
He provoked some of it when he conceded that agency didn’t know that thousands of refugees were trapped at New Orleans’ convention center without food or water until officials heard it on the news.
“He’s done a hell of a job, because I’m not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm,” said Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief. “The world that this man operated in and the focus of this work does not in any way translate to this. He does not have the experience.”
Brown ran for Congress in 1988 and won 27 percent of the vote against Democratic incumbent Glenn English.
He spent the 1990s as judges and stewards commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to ensure that horse-show judges followed the rules.
Brown’s ticket to FEMA was Joe Allbaugh, President Bush’s 2000 campaign manager and a longtime friend of Brown’s in Oklahoma.
Brown told several association officials that if Bush were elected, he would be in line for a good job. When Allbaugh, who managed Bush’s campaign, took over FEMA in 2001, he took Brown with him as general counsel.
And how did he get his job as general counsel to FEMA?
http://business.bostonherald.com/businessN...rticleid=100857
QUOTE
The Oklahoman got the job through an old college friend who at the time was heading up FEMA.
Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh
And he could have done worse? Pray tell, how much worse?
And Michael Brown was on top of the situation wasn't he?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/national...ial/03fema.html
QUOTE
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 - On Thursday night, Michael D. Brown, the federal government's point man for managing the response to Hurricane Katrina, made a remarkable confession on live television.
Speaking of the thousands stranded at the convention center in New Orleans without food or water, Mr. Brown said that his agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had just learned of their plight.
CNN's Paula Zahn was incredulous. "Sir," she said, "you aren't just telling me you just learned that the folks at the convention center didn't have food and water until today, are you? You had no idea they were completely cut off?"
"Paula," Mr. Brown replied unequivocally, "the federal government did not even know about the convention center people until today."
The convention center has been on national tv for at least 1 day if not more. And he didn't even know about it.
Now how could Bush have picked a worse man.
Even a blind person could have seen than he was only a political hackand only had the job because of his Republican connections and don't forget his college roommate.
This was a no-brainer from the start.
Welcome to the enlighten crowd, Carlitos
Please keep all posts constructive and on topic.
Remember: if your post doesn't add new information or insight, it probably isn't constructive.
1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?
2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?
3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?
4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
Remember: if your post doesn't add new information or insight, it probably isn't constructive.
1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?
2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?
3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?
4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?
Absolutely none. The response to this latest disaster is reminiscent of a Keystone Kops silent picture…or maybe the Three Stooges. All of FEMA’s high level positions are held by Bush political cronies with little or no experience managing a disaster, whether natural or man-made - Joe Allbaugh, who ran Bush's campaign in 2000, Patrick Rhode, who did Bush's PR (and has no emergency management experience that I can find), Scott Morris, a press flak for Bush’s campaign, Brooks Altshuler (no emergency management experience), and right at the top, Michael Chertoff, a lawyer and crony to Bush I and II. Having these brownnosers in charge of my security and safety gives me no warm fuzzies.
Let’s all sob a collective boo-hoo for poor, beleaguered Brownie. It must be awful to have a high-paying government appointment for which you have absolutely no experience, no credibility, and no accountability. When you screw up on a gargantuan scale, they just move you (and your paycheck) somewhere else. Oh, the humanity! Wah wah wah, Brownie.
The truly sad thing that does bring a tear to my eye is that the *** is still employed by the DHS! Short of murder, I don’t see that there is any reason on this earth that would cause a political "appointee" to be fired.
An odd tidbit I found from August 1, 2005:
Guess they didn’t think he’d be leaving in quite this way.
Edited to remove attempt at bypassing profanity filter.
Absolutely none. The response to this latest disaster is reminiscent of a Keystone Kops silent picture…or maybe the Three Stooges. All of FEMA’s high level positions are held by Bush political cronies with little or no experience managing a disaster, whether natural or man-made - Joe Allbaugh, who ran Bush's campaign in 2000, Patrick Rhode, who did Bush's PR (and has no emergency management experience that I can find), Scott Morris, a press flak for Bush’s campaign, Brooks Altshuler (no emergency management experience), and right at the top, Michael Chertoff, a lawyer and crony to Bush I and II. Having these brownnosers in charge of my security and safety gives me no warm fuzzies.
QUOTE
A beleaguered Mike Brown said Friday he doesn't know why he was removed from his onsite command of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, but he does know the first thing he'll do when he returns to Washington.
"I'm going to go home and walk my dog and hug my wife, and maybe get a good Mexican meal and a stiff margarita and a full night's sleep," Brown told The Associated Press. "And then I'm going to go right back to FEMA and continue to do all I can to help these victims." San Jose Mercury News
"I'm going to go home and walk my dog and hug my wife, and maybe get a good Mexican meal and a stiff margarita and a full night's sleep," Brown told The Associated Press. "And then I'm going to go right back to FEMA and continue to do all I can to help these victims." San Jose Mercury News
Let’s all sob a collective boo-hoo for poor, beleaguered Brownie. It must be awful to have a high-paying government appointment for which you have absolutely no experience, no credibility, and no accountability. When you screw up on a gargantuan scale, they just move you (and your paycheck) somewhere else. Oh, the humanity! Wah wah wah, Brownie.
The truly sad thing that does bring a tear to my eye is that the *** is still employed by the DHS! Short of murder, I don’t see that there is any reason on this earth that would cause a political "appointee" to be fired.
An odd tidbit I found from August 1, 2005:
QUOTE
Michael D. Brown , who runs the Federal Emergency Management Agency at the Department of Homeland Security, sent around a memo a couple of weeks ago saying "effective immediately," his chief of staff, Patrick Rhode , was the acting deputy director.
This caused some head-scratching, because there is no official deputy director position at FEMA, because there is no official director. <snip>
<snip>
Brown is widely expected to be leaving soon, and there has been some FEMA speculation that this is his way of trying to pave the way for a successor. Rhode had been associate administrator of the Small Business Administration. WA Post
This caused some head-scratching, because there is no official deputy director position at FEMA, because there is no official director. <snip>
<snip>
Brown is widely expected to be leaving soon, and there has been some FEMA speculation that this is his way of trying to pave the way for a successor. Rhode had been associate administrator of the Small Business Administration. WA Post
Guess they didn’t think he’d be leaving in quite this way.
Edited to remove attempt at bypassing profanity filter.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.