Bush accepts full responsibility for Katrina response.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I was just watching President Bush's speech on Iraq and was surprised to hear him say that he accepts full responsibility for the response to Katrina. While I voted for Bush and do support him I was really surprised to hear that. It made me feel like we have some real leadership finally.

www.cnn.com...

BREAKING NEWS

President Bush says he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina. Details soon.



[edit on 13-9-2005 by Dronetek]




posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Real leadership? If Bush is taking full responsability for the disasterous response to Katrina, then he should resign. The response was nothing short of another disaster. Some leadership that is.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
Real leadership? If Bush is taking full responsability for the disasterous response to Katrina, then he should resign. The response was nothing short of another disaster. Some leadership that is.


Why don't we focus on what we need to do now, so that we don't have a bigger disaster?

If you want to lead a witch hunt against someone, why wouldn't you go after the state first?

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Dronetek]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Its not a witch hunt its a fact. This so called great leader is great at running our country into the ground. as for the state read on it explanes alot.


September 9, 2005

Political Issues Snarled Plans for Military Help After Hurricane

By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 -

As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then."

By Wednesday, she had asked for 40,000 soldiers.

In the discussions in Washington, also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than the Guard.

By last Wednesday, Pentagon officials said even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours, could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops, which are specially trained and equipped for civilian law enforcement duties.

In the end, the flow of thousands of National Guard soldiers, especially military police, was accelerated from other states.

"I was there. I saw what needed to be done," Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview. "They were the fastest, best-capable, most appropriate force to get there in the time allowed. And that's what it's all about."

But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.

The call never came, administration officials said, in part because military officials believed Guard troops would get to the stricken region faster and because administration civilians worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters.

Louisiana officials were furious that there was not more of a show of force, in terms of relief supplies and troops, from the federal government in the middle of last week. As the water was rising in New Orleans, the governor repeatedly questioned whether Washington had started its promised surge of federal resources.

"We needed equipment," Ms. Blanco said in an interview. "Helicopters. We got isolated."

Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.

In a separate discussion last weekend, the governor also rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard.

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the military's Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials before an approaching hurricane.

The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time Hurricane Katrina reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and marines to the scene.

After the hurricane passed New Orleans and the levees broke, flooding the city, it became increasingly evident that disaster-response efforts were badly bogged down.

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

The issue of federalizing the response was one of several legal issues considered in a flurry of meetings at the Justice Department, the White House and other agencies, administration officials said.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice Department lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to help local authorities, those officials said. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government had authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor's objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, administration officials said. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Ms. Blanco disagreed.

"Over the last year, we have had about 5,000 out, at one time," she said. "They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor."

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the experience with Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation's plans to handle disaster.

"This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties," Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for domestic security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested that active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon's leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local "first responders," including civilian police and the National Guard.

At a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said, "The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe.""

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported from Washington for this article, and Eric Lipton from Baton Rouge, La. David Johnston contributed reporting.



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I'm not so sure Bush should resign over something like this. Iraq yes. Katrina no. The one who should resign over this is the head of this ridiculous Department of Homeland Security which has turned into a topheavy bureaucratic nightmare. They are the ones that basically crippled FEMA. FEMA wasn't broke before so this brilliant government of ours "fixed" it. So you have some basically meaningless department with no accountability calling the shots. I think you saw a display of how effective and useful they are. Basically they aren't. The only thing the director of FEMA did wrong was give a rats behind what the clowns in DHS thought. There should be serious pressure to get FEMA out from under the umbrella of DHS so they can do their job properly. I mean seriously. How bad was Katrina? It really wasn't. It showed just how poorly prepared we are to handle a disaster of any size. Last I saw there wasn't an observed wind gust over land greater than 110mph. What would happen if an Andrew type storm hit a major metro area? What about the big quake in California or on the New Madrid fault? If we can't handle something where we had a few days notice how are we supposed to handle something with no notice? This storm also brings attention to how overrated building "limits" are. The Superdome was supposed to be rated to 200mph winds or so. It couldn't even handle 100mph before it started coming apart. The levee system in New Orleans was rated to handle a category 3 hurricane. The winds in New Orleans barely reached category 2.

Katrina didn't have to be as expensive as it is turning out to be. But what are we going to learn from this? Probably nothing. I think the most we are getting from this is perhaps more people will leave New Orleans the next time. It has been stated that the total cost of this storm will approach $300 billion. And what have we learned? Apparently that we can rebuild in the exact same spot as before. With that kind of money an entire city could be built from scratch somewhere else. In my city we are getting a brand new airport and retractable roof stadium. Total cost is under $2 billion. You can build a very large city for under $100 billion. For $300 billion you can build 1.2 million homes at $250,000 each. So did we learn from this that its ok to fork over 10, 11 or even 12 figures regularly on a storm because we think we have to live on the water or in the case of New Orleans on the water and below sea level? I guess I can't laugh at my dog for chasing its tail for an hour anymore.

Enough for my rant. I'm off to have my morning cup of coffee.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
With the presidents response to Katrina it's more than easy to see he is incompetent in his duties and is not fit to serve. He should be removed from office.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Thanks for posting the excellent article, aristoi. I watched the video of Bush's "response," but while he accepted responsibility, he still avoided accepting one key thing that he deserves---blame. He did not say "the thing that went wrong are my fault, people's anger at me is justified." He just said---finally---that he is in charge (yeah, right).
I find the idea of removing him for incompetence interesting. There is a consitututional provision that allows for this, and in the present circumstances I think it would be more appropriate than impeachment---although he's earned that,too.
---Ryan



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
If a constitutional provision isn't there to allow for the removal for a grossly incompetitent leader, then one should be added then used on Bush. How polarized is Congress and the Senate right now? I know allot of Replicrats and Demogogues are equally pissed at the current situation, can they get over their show of "partisanship" and do whats right for the Country?

I'll believe it when I see it.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Wether its Katrina, Iraq or the next major blunder, he should be stopped now and forced to resign before there is a major problem that gets a knee jerk reaction that will have consequences far beyond anything else the world has ever seen.
He has admitted responsibility and the people need to stand up and ask the questions that need to be answered. His leadership is in question at a time in the world where mistakes time after time cannot be tolerated.
Why shouldnt we question him and point the finger looking for answers? What do we have to lose?? Time after time I am hearing... "let him get on with his job".. "its not the time to point fingers"
When is a good time?
After the dust is settled?
When he does one thing that makes everyone forget about the past failures?
At whose cost?

Enough of my rant also !!



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
What a charlaton bush is. When september 11th happened NO time was waisted securing and carting off all the evidence but when we have a hurricane disaster like Katrina all feet were dragging, very suspicious eh? How many lives could have been saved if the response was more timely and "correct". bush is nothing more than a finger puppet for fascist demons. I just hope more and more people wake up and see him for what he really is. The only reason I can think of for this "political gesture" is political clout for the next election, now that his approval ratings are bombing and he's loosing his momentum.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
It is always Bush's Fault right

www.dailynews-record.com...

www.dfw.com...

www.sun-sentinel.com...

www.americandaily.com...



It is so easy to blame Bush isn't it. Well that Mayor and Governor F&#@$^@ up. What do you do when one of the worst Hurricanes in history is headed right at you. mmmmm watch then 24 hours before order a mandatory evac. They had three days to do so. Oh and lets ignore the evac plan that was setup. Good one. Those school buses and other transportation veichles will be useful after they are flooded. It makes me wonder where the billions of dollars that were sent around the country for evacuation plans went? AND THEN lets tell everyone the superdome is open for business with no provisions setup. What the hell kind of aid is that. Nice readiness Louisiana.
Oh and then the Governor defends the exit plan....What was the exit plan? I am still trying to figure that one out. A three year old could have gotten on TV and said get out of town.

Mississippi took the brunt of the storm....How come I havn't heard about all these problems there? Florida gets wiped out three times a year and they are still going good. But I guess you all are right it was Bush. It couldn't have been the lack of leadership or preparation by Blanco and Nagin. It is their state, their home they should have taken charge of it.


The Only regret to Bush I have is he didn't say screw you guys this is now my town. Send in the active duty and have that place ship shape in 3 days. But there is crappy red tape to get around that one. And that is BS that they asked for help right from the get go. Basically then what you are saying is Bush said mmmm...I think we will let those Americans suffer. Thats real intelligent. From what I understand the only person to hear the Governor ask for help was the Governor herself. I was glued to the TV and have no recollection of the "Send everything you got" comment. Oh well we must look a head to rebuild. Just a word of advice to the local officials YOU CAN BUS PEOPLE OUT BEFORE A STORM!!!! morons



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I agree with the earlier post that Bush really seems like a charlatan here (probably because he is). I , too, find it highly suspicious that they sealed off the 9/11 rubble and confiscated all the videotpae from in and around the Pentagon within minutes, but when it comes to this---well, there sure was no rush, was there? I've tried to do my part today by calling my congressman and both senators' offices and saying I would like to see a motion introduced in either chamber to have Bush removed for incompetence or else to have articles of impeachment drawn up against him. Sure, it's only one phone call among thousands, but the more they get demanding the same thing, the greater are the odds that at some point they will actually listen.
---Ryan



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
It's very telling when it's so painfully obvious that the fault lies with the state government and everyone is dodging that issue. Sure, the federal has its spot in this also, but the lack of heat on the mayor shows this is all about politics and anti-Bush rhetoric. .



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Now all we need is for Mayor Ray Nagin to take full responsibility for all the people he left in his city to die.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   


It's very telling when it's so painfully obvious that the fault lies with the state government and everyone is dodging that issue. Sure, the federal has its spot in this also, but the lack of heat on the mayor shows this is all about politics and anti-Bush rhetoric. .


AH AH...Thank God. Its a prime opportunity to Blame Bush. And Bush is doing what every true leader is supposed to do. take the blame themselfs. You never ever let your subordinates be blamed for ANYTHING. The leader always takes the blame and handles it in house. NOT with the media.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
It's very telling when it's so painfully obvious that the fault lies with the state government and everyone is dodging that issue. Sure, the federal has its spot in this also, but the lack of heat on the mayor shows this is all about politics and anti-Bush rhetoric. .


Where does the buck stop when it comes to a multi-state disaster that effects the entire country? Who's job is it to protect the States from disaster's that would in all actuality overwhelm the resources of a single municipality(in this case NOLA)? We keep seeing those pictures of hundreds of school busses flooded out, my question is. Was there even enough Gasoline left in the city to get the estimated tens of thousands of people left behind out of there?

I've only heard a few people defend Negin but they are mostly people who can't see past the race card that is continually being thrown out there. He made some costly mistakes and he will have to live with it for the rest of his life. Bush on the other hand has displayed an uncanny nack for making mistakes. How many more till you people wake up! FEMA's former director was not qualified, who okayed his appointment? DHS? If so then who okayed the well erm creation of the Department of Homeland Security? It's all fine to say that the Gov of Louisiana should have specifically asked for Federal troops before the storm hit. Look at the posts on ATS before the storm hit and you will know that we all knew just how bad this was going to be. The Feds were caught totally unaware and the Buck stops with them.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   


Now all we need is for Mayor Ray Nagin to take full responsibility for all the people he left in his city to die.


Well why didn't he round up the public transportation veichles to try and get them out before hand? What was he waiting for? WhY were there no provisions waiting in the Superdome? Oh I guess that wasn't part of the plan.



[edit on 13-9-2005 by Timcouchfanclub]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I'm not sure, but judging by some of the tone here---do some of you Bush-backers actually feel sorry for the guy? If so, please---supoorting him is one thing, but the man has done nothing to deserve your sympathy. The buck stops with him, or at least it should.
---Ryan



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
State, Federal.... lets dodge the issue at hand.
Bush was kept informed of the situation from when the weather people noticed the hurricane. If things were not happening down there, if the people were suffering or not being shipped out... why did he not step in ??
Right... too much red tape and too many people passing the buck. Surely he is President of the USA, couldnt he see what was happening? We all did didnt we... it was pitiful to watch !
Who oversees who is governor, mayor etc and wether they are up to the job ?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
If we want the Federal Government to solve everything then why do we have State and Local Governments?

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Timcouchfanclub]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join