posted on September 11, 2005 07:57:53 AM new
helen, you are just making the case more and more clear the governor of LA and mayor of New Orleans did not do enough to help thier own people.
I have agreed that FEMA did fail in some aspects, but you and others here fail to see that that local governments failed also. You seem to want to embrace the process when it suits you but skip it when it doesn't. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
There was failure at all levels. I don't think anyone here denies that fact. However, when there is failure at local and state levels, shouldn't the federal government be prepared to take the reins and to do so swiftly? I thought that was what Homeland Security and FEMA was all about.
posted on September 11, 2005 08:00:30 AM new
I'd, for one, would just LOVE to hear any of you Bush-Bashing liberals explain to all of us why YOU think the mayor and governor of LA turned away help the Red Cross and the Salvation Army wanted to give to the people of N.O.?
Why in the world would they have blocked access by those two organizations that wanted to help the suffering citizens?
Let's hear your bright reasoning for that dumb move. Why would they have done that in your opinion, when SO MANY, thousands of people needed help?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 11, 2005 08:03 AM ]
posted on September 11, 2005 08:10:24 AM new
LOL.....it works EVERY time.....ask them a hard question.....and they suddenly have something else to do, some place else to go.
Come on you chickens.....answer THAT question.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 11, 2005 09:18:35 AM new
Yes...linda we do have other obligations.
Even .IF your information is correct...that aid from the Red Cross and the Salvation army was rejected by the local authorities it still doesn't ablsolve FEMA from their responsibility to take over when the state and local level is overwhelmed. I have stated that the folks on the local level were probably not as effective as they should have been. FEMA however was a DISASTER. They had sufficient warning from scientists but they ignored it.
In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS.
EVEN Bush noted that the response was inadequate and recalled the incompetent head of FEMA after several days of attempted damage control. Why can't you see any failure on the federal level? Are you absolutely blind?
posted on September 11, 2005 09:41:33 AM new...that aid from the Red Cross and the Salvation army was rejected by the local authorities it still doesn't absolve FEMA from their responsibility to take over when the state and local level is overwhelmed.
Helen, who has absolved FEMA? Bush TOOK the responsibility for FEMA from the beginning, and understood their response was not what he expected of the agency. He REPLACED Browne with a very competent person. What else should have been done and what more can he do at this point in time? Everybody needs to stop vilifying a federal agency and think about where to go from here.
Now I just watched Stephanopoulos and I think Obama is the first one to really address a lot of the current underlying issues about our government structure and functioning, with some intelligent thought behind it - without all the blame games going on. I found it particularly true of what he called a "passive indifference" to the poor that has been neither historically republican or democrat.
posted on September 11, 2005 09:43:49 AM new
Linda_K
posted on September 11, 2005 08:10:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL.....it works EVERY time.....ask them a hard question.....and they suddenly have something else to do, some place else to go.
Come on you chickens.....answer THAT question."""
Well, Queen Clucker, I will if you will!
If you're not too "busy" why not answer questions that have been put to you with no answer forthcomg?
How can you be self-reliant when you want to inherit your parents Social Security?
How can you be self-reliant if you aren't in Iraq fighting your war?
Why is it OK with the neocns to ignore the taxes disappearing into Iraq and then worry so much about how AMERICANS are spending it?
posted on September 11, 2005 11:26:59 AM new
Aw, gee shucks! the Queen Clucker must have "" something else to do, some place else to go.""
...just can't answer those questions
posted on September 11, 2005 04:25:15 PM new
Why should they be Cheryl? If that is the case why have a governor, mayor? You seem to want the President to handle everything, that is not leadership.
posted on September 11, 2005 06:06:18 PM new
I see lots of wasted words. There is enough blame at all levels of government for the New Orleans mess. Nothing more or nothing less and all the blame will come out if the CON-servatives are stopped from running the investigation. The investigation should be run by an independent investigator. Not people from either party trying to cover their azzes.
