Mike is Brown and sounds like a bell.

The theme of this post

Once again I am referring to a Monty Python joke, namely "What is brown and sounds like a bell? Dung."

I could end this post right now, but I will provide some support for my assertion.

Don't play the blame game.

Tuesday, Brownie did a "heckuva job" testifying before a Congressional panel. You can get the entire transcript here. Before discussing his testimony, let's revisit the Bush administration's position on playing the "blame game." Scotty Boy McClellan set out the policy in a press briefing on September 7, 2005. Showing just one statement by Scotty would sum up the Bush administration's stance, but then you could not be entertained by the insistent, emphatic nature of McClellan's bullshit. So here is most of the exchange:

Q: Scott, does the President retain confidence in his FEMA Director and Secretary of Homeland Security?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, see, this is where some people want to look at the blame game issue, and finger-point. We're focused on solving problems, and we're doing everything we can --

Q: What about the question?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're doing everything we can in support --

Q: We know all that.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.

Q: Does he retain complete confidence --

MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to continue. We appreciate the great effort that all of those at FEMA, including the head of FEMA, are doing to help the people in the region. And I'm just not going to engage in the blame game or finger-pointing that you're trying to get me to engage.

Q: Okay, but that's not at all what I was asking.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure it is. It's exactly what you're trying to play.

Q: You have your same point you want to make about the blame game, which you've said enough now. I'm asking you a direct question, which you're dodging.

MR. McCLELLAN: No --

Q: Does the President retain complete confidence in his Director of FEMA and Secretary of Homeland Security, yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered the question.

Q: Is the answer "yes" on both?

MR. McCLELLAN: And what you're doing is trying to engage in a game of finger-pointing.

Q: There's a lot of criticism. I'm just wondering if he still has confidence.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and blame-gaming. What we're trying to do is solve problems, David. And that's where we're going to keep our focus.

Q: So you're not -- you won't answer that question directly?

MR. McCLELLAN: I did. I just did.

Q: No, you didn't. Yes or no? Does he have complete confidence or doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, if you want to continue to engage in finger-pointing and blame-gaming, that's fine --

Q: Scott, that's ridiculous. I'm not engaging in any of that.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's not ridiculous.

Q: Don't try to accuse me of that. I'm asking you a direct question and you should answer it. Does he retain complete confidence in his FEMA Director and Secretary of Homeland Security, yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said -- that's exactly what you're engaging in.

Q: I'm not engaging in anything. I'm asking you a question about what the President's views are --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely -- absolutely --

Q: -- under pretty substantial criticism of members of his administration. Okay? And you know that, and everybody watching knows that, as well.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, everybody watching this knows, David, that you're trying to engage in a blame game.

Q: I'm trying to engage?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q: I am trying to engage?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Q: That's a dodge.

I included this excerpt not to show that McClellan never answered the question (such failure is hardly breaking news), but rather to show that the Bush administration absolutely did not want to play the "blame game" and sharply criticized those that did. Not only that, but Brown his ownself told Congress "Now, I'm not here to point blame. I'm not here to point fingers. I'm here just to tell the truth."

A player just gots to play--and I'm gonna be a hater.

• In general
  

The lead paragraphs from the following news reports give a good summary:

Reuters: The former head of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, who resigned under a hail of criticism over the slow response to Hurricane Katrina, blamed local officials on Tuesday and said his agency had done a good job.

AP: Former FEMA director Michael Brown aggressively defended his role in responding to Hurricane Katrina on Tuesday and blamed most coordination failures on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.

Chicago Tribune: Michael Brown, the Bush administration's ousted emergency management chief, went before Congress on Tuesday unbowed by fierce criticism of his handling of Hurricane Katrina, admitting few errors of his own and laying most of the blame for the debacle of early relief efforts on local officials in Louisiana.

And this is not playing the blame game? Silly me--I forgot that the Bush administration gets to criticize the behavior of others and then turn right around and engage in the same behavior. Before showing what Brownie actually said, I will address something I am sure some of you are thinking, namely how could Brown's comments reflect on the Bush administration since Brown resigned as the head of FEMA? Well, the answer is simple: Brown still works for FEMA.

As reported by CBS and the AP, even though Brown resigned on September 12, such resignation did not become effective until two weeks later, and even then the plan was to keep him at FEMA for an additional month so that the agency could get the "proper download of his experience." But wait--there's more. CNN reported that "Brown told congressional investigators Monday that he is being paid as a consultant to help FEMA assess what went wrong in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina[.]" And he is getting paid $148,000 a year for his services! Only in the Bush administration would this be possible.

Be that as it may, the main point here is that Brownie is still part of the Bush administration, so his comments before Congress can to some degree be attributed to the Bush administration. In light of that, here is a discussion of some of what Brown had to say. Much of what follows can be found in the transcript and the articles already listed plus articles from the New York Times and Washington Post. Other sources are noted and linked.

• "It's not my job."
  

Brown asserted that most of what went wrong was not FEMA's responsibility or fault:

And while my heart goes out to people on fixed incomes, it is primarily a state and local responsibility. And in my opinion, it's the responsibility of faith-based organizations, of churches and charities and others to help those people.

When asked by Tom Davis (R-Va.) what FEMA should have done to help evacuate New Orleans, restore order in the city, and improve communication among law enforcement agencies, Brown retorted, "Those are not FEMA roles. FEMA doesn’t evacuate communities. FEMA does not do law enforcement. FEMA does not do communications." Really? Brownie needs to read A tangent from the extended rant (a "rantgent" perhaps), Another part of the rantgent, and Back to the rantgent. Those posts show that DHS and FEMA stated that such matters were the primary responsibility of the federal government and that Gov. Blanco did many things she was supposed to do under the law (including asking for federal funds and assistance in a timely manner).

• "It's not my fault that Blanco and Nagin screwed up."
  

Brownie also took the noble step of admitting something he did wrong:

I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences and work together. I just couldn't pull that off.

*******

My biggest mistake was not recognizing, by Saturday (before the storm made landfall), that Louisiana was dysfunctional.

What a guy. In other words, it's not Brown's fault that Blanco and Nagin screwed up. Brown also noted that the response to Katrina went more smoothly in Alabama and Mississippi. Blanco’s press secretary, Denise Bottcher, said that “Mike Brown wasn’t engaged then, and he surely isn’t now." A spokeswoman from Nagin's office responded by saying that "The governor and the mayor were totally on the same page." Nagin said, "To try and spin this and say Louisiana is the only place that had problems is disingenuous." Indeed, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) agreed by saying "You can try to throw as much as you can on the backs of Louisianans, but I'm a witness as to what happened in Mississippi. You folks fell on your face. You get an F-minus in my book."

• "Blanco and Nagin botched the evacuation, and that caused every other problem."
  

Brown also opined that Blanco and Nagin failed to give mandatory evacuation orders until the day before the storm hit, and that the inadequate evacution was the "tipping point" for all the bad things that happened.

What an asshole.

At first glance, Brown seemed to say that no evacuation orders were issued until Sunday, August 28. Such an assertion is wrong. First, as discussed in Another part of the rantgent, Blanco declared a state of emergency on August 26--three days before the storm made landfall--"in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas and the remainder of the state to support the State Evacuation and Sheltering Plan." Second, at 2:50 pm on August 27, Blanco ordered contraflow on all evacuation routes out of the greater New Orleans area. "Contraflow" means not allowing inbound traffic on inbound roads and instead using those roads for outbound traffic. By 4:00 pm, the contraflow plan was implemented, and, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, that plan had alleviated most of the traffic problems. Third, as reported by the Times-Picayune, Mayor Nagin ordered a voluntary evacuation of New Orleans on August 27 at 5:00 pm:

Nagin said late Saturday that he's having his legal staff look into whether he can order a mandatory evacuation of the city, a step he's been hesitant to do because of potential liability on the part of the city for closing hotels and other businesses.

"Come the first break of light in the morning, you may have the first mandatory evacuation of New Orleans," Nagin told WWL-TV.

Indeed, Nagin issued a mandatory evacuation order the following morning (the day before the storm hit). Because of these facts, Brown used the phrase "mandatory evacuation."

But was Brown citing a distinction without a difference? In other words, would issuing a definitive, express, no-doubt-about-it mandatory evacuation order have made a difference? As we have seen, while some who stayed in New Orleans did so of their own free will, many were unable to get out of town and/or had no place to go.

And more to the point, how does the failure to get everyone evacuated exonerate FEMA and Brown? The only possible explanation is that if absolutely no one had been in New Orleans when the storm hit, there would have been almost no need for FEMA to do anything. However, the fact that people were there does not in any way explain why FEMA operated with all the efficiency of the Keystone Cops.

Here are two accounts of FEMA's performance. The first is from Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard from his September 4 appearance on "Meet the Press."

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.

The second account comes from Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu on September 3:

Yesterday, I was hoping President Bush would come away from his tour of the regional devastation triggered by Hurricane Katrina with a new understanding for the magnitude of the suffering and for the abject failures of the current Federal Emergency Management Agency. 24 hours later, the President has yet to answer my call for a cabinet-level official to lead our efforts. Meanwhile, FEMA, now a shell of what it once was, continues to be overwhelmed by the task at hand.

I understand that the U.S. Forest Service had water-tanker aircraft available to help douse the fires raging on our riverfront, but FEMA has yet to accept the aid. When Amtrak offered trains to evacuate significant numbers of victims -- far more efficiently than buses -- FEMA again dragged its feet. Offers of medicine, communications equipment and other desperately needed items continue to flow in, only to be ignored by the agency.

Now tell me just how these actions and inactions by FEMA were caused by a failure to issue a mandatory evacuation order more than a day before the storm hit. Let me rephrase that: don't even bother to try because there is no feasible explanation.

And then there is the bus fiasco as described in Back to the rantgent...

For more examples check out this September 12 post from Kevin Drum.

• "At first I couldn't do anything because Blanco's request for relief was inadequate, but I'm such a great guy I did something anyway."

This shows that Brownie is pretty much an idiot. During his testimony, he claimed that Blanco failed to include New Orleans and some of the adjacent parishes in her request for federal relief. Here is the exchange between Brownie and Rep. Stephen Buyer (R-In.):

BUYER: I would like to ask some questions about the pre-landfall. So I'd like to know why did the president's federal emergency assistance declaration of August 27th not include the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson and Plaquemines?

BROWN: Under the law, the governor makes the request for the declaration and the governors of the states specify what areas, what counties they want included in that declaration.

And, based upon the governor's request, that's the recommendation that we make to the president. So if a governor does not request a particular county or a particular parish, that's not included in the request.

BUYER: All right.

Orleans Parish is New Orleans. I was listening to my colleague, Mr. Jefferson's, questions about when they talked about, you know, they asked for this assistance for three days and then president responded the very next day, not the day that it was made -- the request -- but the governor of Louisiana actually excluded New Orleans from the president's federal emergency assistance declaration?

BROWN: Again, Congressman, we looked at the request. The governors make the request by...

BUYER: Let me ask this. Since you went through the exercise in Pam, was that not shocking to you that the governor would excluded New Orleans from the declaration?

BROWN: Yes.

BUYER: When that request came in excluding these three parishes, did you question it?

BROWN: We questioned it. But I made the decision that we were going to go ahead and move assets in regardless because we have the ability to add those parishes...

BUYER: Regardless. Define regardless to me. What does that mean?

BROWN: Well, under the Stafford Act, once that declaration is made under the delegation of authorities, the director of FEMA can add counties on.

And so I just made the decision regardless of what the governor did, that if we needed to add counties on, we would do that.

There is just one problem with Brownie's testimony...IT IS COMPLETELY FALSE. Let's take another look at Blanco's letter to Bush by which she requested a federal emergency declaration and requesting federal assistance.

I request that you declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period beginning August 26, 2005, and continuing. The affected areas are all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting the thousands of citizens evacuating from the areas expecting to be flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

(emphasis added). Thus, the irrefutable written evidence shows that Blanco's request included the three parishes Brown claimed were excluded. Those of you needing further proof should look at this map. (Thanks to Judd at Think Progress.) So, Brown not only falsely blamed Blanco, but he also took credit for something he did not do.

Again, what an dung-hole.

Some thoughts on our soon-to-be Chief Justice

I just heard Johnathan Turley, a law professor, on MSNBC discussing the imminent confirmation of John Roberts for Chief Justice. Turley was wondering why some Senators seemed to take it easy on Roberts when Robert Bork was so harshly treated and Roberts shares many views with Bork.

There's an easy answer: Robert Bork is an asshole and John Roberts is not.

No judicial appointment has ever upset me more than Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court (and that includes Priscilla Owen, and check out the May archives to see how much I dislike her). Bork is a biased, elitist, arrogant, intellectual bigot and hypocrite. Roberts, on the other hand, is not any of those things. As a Supreme Court Justice, Bork would have been an activist judge of the worst kind. From what I heard from Roberts in the latest hearings, he will not be an activist judge.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. I strongly opposed Bork's nomination, but I fully supported Rehnquist's nomination as Chief Justice. I won't go into the reasons for that support, but I will say that, regardless of his views or his future rulings, if Roberts conducts the Supreme Court in the way Rehnquist did, I will be happy.

I would have loved for Roberts to give more answers about his views on specific issues, but I was satisfied by his explanations of how he would function in the role of Chief Justice. See, regardless of a judge's personal views, beliefs, or desires, that judge has to have a commitment to the rule of law. There are times at which such personal views, beliefs, and desires have to yield to the commitment to the law. From what I have heard from Roberts, I think he will do just that.

In his hearings, Roberts repeatedly explained his previous government legal work as reflecting the fact that he was an advocate taking the position of his employer. He also explained that his role as Chief Justice would be very different from his role as an advocate. Those explanations are reasonable and plausible, and they, along with Roberts's general demeanor and personality, cause me to think he will be similar to Rehnquist.

I really hope that is the case.

NEWS FLASH: It's a bad day for the Bug Man

This just in: Tom Delay has been indicted on a criminal conspiracy charge.

Bush's concept of using the military in disaster relief is part of a disturbing trend.

What Bush wants and the reasons it makes some sense

A Reuters article from yesterday discusses something that on one hand makes sense, but on the other hand shows another step in what I consider to be a disturbing trend. The title of the article is "Bush mulls lead role for military in disasters." The key term is "lead role."

The article quoted both Bush and Scotty Boy McClellan. Sunday Bush was at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio to discuss with three generals future responses to natural disasters. As shown in the transcript of the press briefing after this meeting, the generals want a national plan for disaster response. Here's what Bush said at the briefing:

Part of the reason I've come down here, and part of the reason I went to NORTHCOM, was to better understand how the federal government can plan and surge equipment, to mitigate natural disasters. And I appreciate very much, General, your briefing, because it's precisely the kind of information that I'll take back to Washington to help all of us understand how we can do a better job in coordinating federal, state and local response.

The other question, of course, I asked, was, is there a circumstance in which the Department of Defense becomes the lead agency. Clearly, in the case of a terrorist attack, that would be the case, but is there a natural disaster which -- of a certain size that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort. That's going to be a very important consideration for Congress to think about.

(emphasis added). Several hours after this briefing Scotty Boy addressed the media aboard Air Force One. McClellan explained the reason for possibly putting DoD in the lead role:

Q: What's the next step on this idea of the DOD maybe taking over at certain times if it's a big enough disaster?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's something we'll be discussing with congressional leaders, and talking about. The President, as I said yesterday, spent a good bit of time with Admiral Keating and Secretary Chertoff and others at Northern Command, talking about some of these issues. And it's something he believes very strongly that Congress needs to consider. And that's why I emphasized what we're talking about here are really extraordinary circumstances, brought about because of some catastrophic event, whether it's a natural disaster or a terrorist attack or -- I should say, a natural disaster or a terrorist attack of a certain magnitude and scope, or a disease pandemic, like an avian flu outbreak, and you need to mobilize assets and resources and logistics and communications very quickly to help stabilize or contain the situation.

The Department of Defense is really the one organization that has the ability and capability to be able to do that.

*******

But if you have a situation like a Hurricane Katrina, where the state and local first responders are, to a large extent, victims themselves, and somewhat overwhelmed, then what do you do in a situation like that, and should there be some sort of a trigger that says, okay, the federal government needs to marshal a lot of their resources quickly, get in there and stabilize the situation. And it's the Department of Defense that has the capability to do that -- the logistics, the communications, the assets to be able to do it quickly for the initial time period you need to stabilize the situation.

(emphasis added). The emphasized portions show why putting DoD in charge makes some sense. However, there are some serious questions left unanswered.

The questions

• Authority within the federal government
  

For instance, Scotty also said "There are a number--there are legal issues involved, and there are reasons we have these laws in place." Indeed, there are many legal issues. Under the Stafford Act, which was discussed briefly in Another part of the rantgent, FEMA and DHS currently have the lead role in any federal disaster response. Scotty Boy was asked about this issue:

Q: What would be the role of DHS if you were to do something like this, they would be supporting DOD?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this is the whole -- this goes to the issue of, when you have a catastrophic event like we saw with Hurricane Katrina, there's an issue of, what is the line of authority. And I think in the President's thinking, he wants to make sure there's a very clear line of authority who is going to oversee that response. Right now you have responsibility shared among local, state and federal officials. To a large extent, the federal government is in a role of supporting and assisting the state and local first responders. That's why states and local communities have response plans in place. And the federal government is there to do all we can to assist with the search -- with savings lives and search and rescue operations and sustaining life and providing or helping with the recovery.

Does that answer your question?

Q: So, basically, the bottom line is, is that the Defense Secretary would be the new line of command, and control all the operations?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's something we need to consider for the event of -- for any event of a extraordinary circumstance brought about because of some catastrophic event, whether it's a natural disaster or a terrorist attack -- a large-scale natural disaster or a large-scale terrorist attack type situation, or a large outbreak of disease.

Q: Currently, under the National Response Plan, it's Chertoff, it's the Homeland Security Secretary that's in charge. So you're -- the idea is to shift it over to DOD.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it's in the event of an extraordinary circumstance that we're talking about. It has to be some trigger there for a severe, catastrophic-type event.

In other words, nobody yet has a clue has this issue will be resolved.

• State and local authority
  

As noted in the Reuters article, another question is what kind of role and authority state and local officials will have:

Putting the military in the lead role would sideline the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, which now works with local and state officials to coordinate disaster response.

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, expressed reticence about that approach on CNN's "Late Edition."

Landrieu said the military has a strong role to play "but so do our governors and our local elected officials."

"I mean we do have a democracy and a citizenship that has elected mayors, county commissioners and governors particularly. I'm not sure the governors association or all the mayors in America would be willing to step aside," she said.

Indeed, a reporter asked McClellan about this issue, and Scotty Boy basically gave one of his standard non-answers:

Q: Would the states have any say over whether the federal government would just come in and effectively take over some sort of -- you know, the disaster cleanup, or would --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, some of these -- there are some existing powers in place. A governor can certainly request certain things of the federal government, and that's an issue to look at. These are all issues to consider. That's what the President is talking about.

Q: But, I mean, other than -- the ideas that he has, is he saying once it reaches some trigger, than automatically the federal government takes over, or does the state have -- is this a mandatory thing for the states?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's one of the things to consider, is there -- when you have an automatic trigger that says, okay, now it's the federal government that takes over, and the Department of Defense is the one with the capability to be able to do that, help stabilize the situation. And it's not -- it would be the --

Q:At that point, the states wouldn't have any say in it.

MR. McCLELLAN: The Department of Defense would assume the responsibility for the situation, and come in with an overwhelming amount of resources and assets, to help stabilize the situation. And, certainly, we need support from state and local authorities and other federal agencies, as well.

This is a big issue to resolve, and as I will explain later, my view is that the resolution could be very disturbing.

• Does the military have the flexibility to do this?

Given our current military deployments and commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a valid question, and it was posed to McClellan:

Q: Scott, isn't that, potentially, a very big commitment for the military at a time when they have extensive obligations abroad, and some say they're stretched pretty thin already?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, some may say that, but I think the military has said otherwise. The Department of Defense has discounted that. They're able to meet all their priorities. But, again, in terms of looking at this issue, apart from your question, is that this is something that the President believes needs to be considered, because we all saw what happened with Hurricane Katrina and the response efforts. The President was not satisfied about the results of that response.

He thinks the military has said otherwise? And who cares if DoD has discounted it? These are the same morons (Rumskull, in particular) that have been in charge of everything in Iraq, and, frankly, that means that DoD's opinions must be discounted.

• Just what does "extraordinary" mean?

This is perhaps the most important question. McClellan emphasized repeatedly that the military would take over only under "extraordinary" circumstances, but provided almost no guidance as to what that means. Here is what he did say:

And he (Bush) touched on -- he touched a little bit more on what he talked about to you all, about one of the things we need to consider is, is there a trigger that comes into play in the event of a catastrophic event or an extraordinary situation like a catastrophic event, where the Department of Defense would need to come in and help, really, to stabilize the situation[.]

*******

And that's why I emphasized what we're talking about here are really extraordinary circumstances, brought about because of some catastrophic event, whether it's a natural disaster or a terrorist attack or -- I should say, a natural disaster or a terrorist attack of a certain magnitude and scope, or a disease pandemic, like an avian flu outbreak, and you need to mobilize assets and resources and logistics and communications very quickly to help stabilize or contain the situation.

*******

It's something we need to consider for the event of -- for any event of a extraordinary circumstance brought about because of some catastrophic event, whether it's a natural disaster or a terrorist attack -- a large-scale natural disaster or a large-scale terrorist attack type situation, or a large outbreak of disease.

*******

Again, it's in the event of an extraordinary circumstance that we're talking about. It has to be some trigger there for a severe, catastrophic-type event.

*******

It's the situation of a -- the best way to say it is an extraordinary circumstance, a catastrophic event that -- of course we hope we never see another Hurricane Katrina in our lifetime, or a situation like that.

*******

We saw an extraordinary circumstance in Hurricane Katrina...

First of all, defining "extraordinary" with "catastrophic" does not provide any definition. Second, saying "of a certain magnitude" provides no definition at all. Indeed, it is the magnitude that needs to be spelled out with certainty. Third, why should the military be put in charge if there is an outbreak of avian flu? Fourth, why does almost everything with these guys have to be linked to terrorism? Fifth, if Katrina is an example of an "extraordinary" event, it is but one example. Does the term include things other than hurricanes? If so, what are they?

Some of you might be wondering why defining "extraordinary" is important. Well, let me tell you, when the military is going to be put in charge of doing things in this country, there needs to be a clear delineation of when it is to take control and exert power over the citizens of this country. Without such delineation, we will all be placed on a slippery slope. Without a clear definition of "extraordinary," the military could step in and "stabilize" situations of all kinds. And the people who would likely would give the order to "stabilize" would be Bush, Cheney, and Rumskull. And that is damn scary.

But that is not the disturbing trend...

Here's the disturbing part...

• In general
  

This desire by Bush to put the military in charge of "extraordinary" and "catastrophic" events is just another step in the ongoing trend to centralize power in the federal government. First came the USA PATRIOT Act (check out Truth in acronyms). Next came the Homeland Security Act, which 1) created a new cabinet level agency that supposedly was to oversee all homeland security efforts in the country, and 2) so poorly defined just what DHS was supposed to do and made such a mess of the federal bureaucracy that it would be easy for DHS to do just about anything and either justify it or hide it. But then there is also a trend toward centralizing federal power in the Department of Defense. Witness the post-war planning for Iraq, which was taken away from the State Department and handed to the Defense Department. And now Bush wants to put the military (which is controlled by the DoD) in charge of a major domestic, non-military operation.

• A new law is not needed, and Congress better find some backbone.
  

To further show what I believe to be happening, I refer to something else Scotty Boy said:

Q: Does it take -- would it take an act of Congress to do what the President is thinking about? I think that's what you were saying.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's why he said, Congress needs to consider this, and that he wants to work with Congress to look at how we move forward on it.

An examination of the Stafford Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 5170b(c), shows that the President currently has authority to order use of military assets in disaster situations. Here is the general rule of § 5170b(c):

During the immediate aftermath of an incident which may ultimately qualify for assistance under this subchapter or subchapter IV-A of this chapter, the Governor of the State in which such incident occurred may request the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to utilize the resources of the Department of Defense for the purpose of performing on public and private lands any emergency work which is made necessary by such incident and which is essential for the preservation of life and property. If the President determines that such work is essential for the preservation of life and property, the President shall grant such request to the extent the President determines practicable. Such emergency work may only be carried out for a period not to exceed 10 days.

Given this law, please explain to me why there needs to be an additional law passed by Congress. I have a theory: 1) the current law does not enable the military to be given primary control (particularly since the initial request must come from a state governor); and 2) having Congress pass a law gives the sheen of legitimacy. In other words, as was done with the Iraq War Resolution, Bush could say that since the new law was passed by Congress, it reflects the will of the people.

Congress damn well better do its job for a change (and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans). Both the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act were passed without any meaningful review and consideration. Very few members of Congress were willing to stand up and question anything about those two acts for fear of looking unpatriotic. In part, those acts were passed so that Congress could show the American people it was doing something. In other words, passing those acts quickly was the politically expedient thing to do. This time around, Congress needs to question this objective thoroughly, and if some new law is passed, it damn well better has clearly defined parameters.

• Josh Marshall sums it all up.
  

I have not been keeping up with my usual blog reading lately. I started thinking about this post a couple of days after Bush's September 15 speech when I re-read it, but waited until this past Sunday to start working on it. I know my thoughts are not original because yesterday I came across some of Josh Marshall's posts expressing similar views over at Talking Points Memo. Here's an excerpt from a September 26 post by Josh:

As I wrote a couple weeks ago, you don't repair disorganized or incompetent government by granting it more power. You fix it by making it more organized and more competent. Just so here -- the move to militarize government's domestic responsibilities rather than improve them is a dangerous trend. And it suggests that, functionally, there's little left of conservatism today other than a warped big-government authoritarianism.

And here is part of what he said in his earlier post:

Then there's the president's great line from the speech: "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces."

No, it's not. Actually, every actual fact that's surfaced in the last two weeks points to just the opposite conclusion. There was no lack of federal authority to handle the situation. There was faulty organization, poor coordination and incompetence.

Show me the instance where the federal government was prevented from doing anything that needed to be done because it lacked the requisite authority.

This is like what we were talking about a few days ago. This is how repressive governments operate -- mixing inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.

You don't repair disorganized or incompetent government by granting it more power. You fix it by making it more organized and more competent. If conservatism can't grasp that point, what is it good for?

As for the military, same difference. The Army clearly has an important role to play in major domestic disasters. And they've been playing it in this case. But what broader role was required exactly?

As I've been saying, repressive governments mix adminsitrative clumsiness and inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies. That's almost always the pattern. The direction the president wants to go in is one in which, in emergencies, the federal government will have trouble moving water into or enabling transportation out of the disaster zone but will be well-equipped to declare martial law on a moment's notice.

(emphasis added). Right on, Josh.

Right on.

A possible reason why it took so long for some conservatives to become disenchanted with Bush

The first comment to Drezner's "Greetings, disenchanted conservatives" was made by Josh Yelon, and I think it is right (as in correct):

Funny, these are the same guys who idolized him for the first five years of his presidency. What changed, all of a sudden? Certainly not Bush, he is still acting the same way he has his entire career.

What's changed is that after five years of presidency, the elections are finally over. It is now safe to criticise Bush, because such criticism can't possibly matter any more - it can't affect his reelection chances.

Forgive me if I don't perceive this as responsible conservatism. Responsibility would have been criticising him before it's too late to do anything about his weaknesses. Responsibility would have been getting Mike Brown out of there before Katrina hit. Responsibility would have been getting Rumsfeld out of there before Iraq was a total loss. What we're seeing now isn't just too little, too late --- it's *intentionally* too little, too late. The criticism was intentionally postponed until it no longer mattered.

And here is a related comment from a poster named Jasper:

The fact is that most conservatives (except the Buchanan types) fell into line easily pre-war. Post-war, for a long time, many conservatives kept (and keep) on saying that things were just hunky-dory in iraq and the fault was that of the evil media in focusing on the half a dozen car bombs a week. Finally, when the problems became too much to paper over, some have tried to cover their butts by complaining a little about the administration (although most of their ink seems to be spent criticizing the evil liberals over Iraq).

With notable exceptions such as Chuck Hagel, there has [been] little genuine open minded criticism from conservatives over Iraq policy (not just specific points).

While Dan (a nominal conservative who voted for Kerry) has been far more critical of the administration on Iraq, the fact is that many right-wing bloggers (including Instapundit) spend most of their time blaming the media.

Pat Buchanan, whose conservative credentials are well established, has been critical of Bush on some matters, and some conservative or right-leaning bloggers--such as Drezner and Andrew Sullivan--have been raising concerns and complaints about the Bush administration since before the election, but anyone who wants to dispute the comments above is pretty much wrong.

And this brings me back to matters I have raised previously. The first comes from the previous post: WHAT THE HELL TOOK YOU SO LONG TO BECOME DISENCHANTED? The second matter comes from Next part of the extended rant: Bush is like a deer in headlights, specifically a comment by Bill Maher about Bush just sitting there when he was informed of the 9-11 attack: "[I]f you defend a President for sitting there for even one second after he is told America is under attack, you are loyal to a person more than you are to the truth, to a principle, or to your country."

And together these two matters bring me to a huge complaint I have about Bush and everyone who has so steadfastly supported and defended him. See, Maher was on the right track, but he did not go far enough. The GOP has not been about loyalty to a person. Before I proceed, I must say I will be painting with a very broad brush. My comments--and they are going to be harsh--do not apply to every Republican, but they are widely applicable, especially here in Texas.

Bush and the Republican party are all about getting and keeping power. Policy is at best secondary. Other consequences are not important. It started with Newt Gingrich and Lee Atwater, and Bush, Cheney, Rove, DeLay, etc. have taken the cause to great extremes. And before anybody starts whining about Clinton and how he disgraced the office, please compare lying under oath about an extra-marital affair to getting us in a war on false pretenses, completely screwing up the post-war effort, spending close to $200 billion on that war with no end in sight, failing to really provide for Homeland Security, almost 2000 military deaths in Iraq, and on and on and on. So much of what the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress have done is so full of abject stupidity and hypocrisy I do not see any explanation other than "we have the power and we are going to make sure we keep it."

Anybody think I'm crazy? Well, explain to me why under this Republican regime the deficit is setting new records every day. Explain to me why Bush and the Republican Congress have increased the federal bureaucracy and made it more complicated and inefficient (through the Homeland Security Act). Explain to me why under Bush and the Republican Congress the federal government now has more power, which is to say explain why power has become more centralized in the federal government. Explain to me why Bush has appointed and/or hired so many people who have no relevant experience at the least and are incompetent at worst. And PLEASE explain to me why the Republican Party has allowed all this to happen. You can't blame it on the Democrats because they are not in power. There are many other similar questions, but I will not ask them now because any hardcore Bush supporter trying to answer these questions likely needs to take a break for the headache to diminish.

And by the way, if you want to dispute this, do not even say things like "you are just politicizing this" or "we can't criticize the President during a war," etc. Either talk substance or don't talk at all.

And it's not as if the Democrats have been much better. The same kind of issues were at play during the election, but the scope was limited to the Democratic party itself. That's why we ended up with John Kerry as the nominee. I kid you not when I say that Kerry was the last candidate I wanted to get the nomination. However, the DNC and "the powers that were" deemed before the race even started that Kerry would win. I posted a detailed rant on this subject on February 7, 2004, at the Clark Community Network, and I have also addressed it on this blog. And, regarding policies such as the Iraq War, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, etc., many Democrats decided to just go with the flow instead of speaking out in order to cover their own sorry asses and keep their positions of power.

Getting back to qualifiying my "broad brush"...My criticism does not apply to people just because they voted for Bush in 2004. Although I could never have voted for Bush under any circumstances, I can understand why some saw him as the lesser of two evils. After all, that's why I voted for Kerry. I will never agree that Bush was the lesser of two evils, but I can understand why many Republicans looked at Kerry and decided they could not vote for him. My criticism does apply, however, to anyone who blindly supports and defends Bush--and there are plenty of people who fall into that category.

And now that the wheels of the Bush Bus are showing signs that maybe no amount of spin will take away their wobble, we start seeing "disenchanted conservatives" starting to bail on Bush. I have no patience for these people for two reasons: first, for not criticizing and questioning Bush when it might have made a difference just so they could get in on the power; and second, for finally starting to criticize Bush just to avoid being caught in what they perceive as Bush's possible downfall.

So what took you so long?

In my list o' links you will see the name Daniel Drezner. You can read some info about him here. Suffice it to say that he ain't exactly a bleeding heart liberal. Yesterday he had a blog post entitled "Greetings, disenchanted conservatives." The entire post is worth reading, but I will excerpt three short paragraphs (links provided by Drezner):

It's no secret that I've been disenchanted with President Bush for some time now. Recently, it seems, a lot of conservatives have joined the club.

Shailagh Murray and Jim VandeHei report in the Washington Post that Congressional Republicans are less than thrilled with the Bush administration[.]

*******

The conservative blogosphere is not really thrilled with the administration either[.]

To which I just have to ask, "WHAT THE HELL TOOK YOU SO LONG TO BECOME DISENCHANTED?" As a heathen/Methodist/Democrat/activist, it seems to me that the Conservative movement has been abandoning true conservative values ever since Newt Gingrich bailed on his own Contract with America, and, to paraphrase Jamie Lee Curtis in "A Fish Called Wanda," calling George W. Bush a conservative would be an insult to conservatives.

And now many people are wondering just what I mean to convey with that previous sentence. :-)

Back to the rantgent...

In the discussion following Another part of the rantgent, the issue of why school buses that were available to evacuate people from New Orleans were not utilized came up. The question was asked why Mayor Nagin did not order the use of those buses. I have not seen anything else about Nagin and buses, but I have seen a report concerning Gov. Blanco and buses. On September 18, TV station WBRZ in Baton Rouge filed a report on its website entitled "Blanco says feds pledged buses."Here are some excerpts:

Hours after the hurricane hit Aug. 29, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced a plan to send 500 commercial buses into New Orleans to rescue thousands of people left stranded on highways, overpasses and in shelters, hospitals and homes.

On the day of the storm, or perhaps the day after, FEMA turned down the state's suggestion to use school buses because they are not air conditioned, Blanco said Friday in an interview.

Even after levees broke and residents were crowding the Louisiana Superdome, then-FEMA Director Mike Brown was bent on using his own buses to evacuate New Orleans, Blanco said.

*******

The state had sent 68 school buses into the city on Monday.

Blanco took over more buses from Louisiana school systems and sent them in on Wednesday, two days after the storm. She tapped the National Guard to drive them. Each time the buses emptied an area, more people would appear, she said.

The buses took 15,728 people to safety, a Blanco aide said. But the state's fleet of school buses wasn't enough. On Wednesday, with the FEMA buses still not in sight, Blanco called the White House to talk to Bush and ended up speaking to Chief of Staff Andy Card.

"I said, 'Even if we had 500 buses, they've underestimated the magnitude of this situation, and I think I need 5,000 buses, not 500,'" Blanco recounted.

"'But, Andy, those 500 are not here,'" the governor said.

Card promised to get Blanco more buses.

Later Wednesday night, Blanco walked into the State Police Communications Center and asked if anyone knew anything about the buses.

An officer told her the buses were just entering the state.

"I said, 'Do you mean as in North Louisiana, which is another six hours from New Orleans?,'" Blanco recalled in the interview. "He said, 'Yes, m'am.'"

It was at that point, Blanco said, that she realized she had made a critical error.

"I assumed that FEMA had staged their buses in near proximity," she said. "I expected them to be out of the storm's way but accessible in one day's time."

It was late Wednesday. The buses wouldn't get to New Orleans until Thursday. By then, many of the sickest and the weakest were dead or dying.

*******

Besides, Blanco said, she thought Brown was in control of the situation.

"I had security in the knowledge that there were 500 buses," she said. "Mike had emphasized the buses to me personally. That was not my first concern until I realized that they were not there."

Meanwhile, the state continued to send school buses into the affected areas.

One of Blanco's aides, Leonard Kleinpeter, said FEMA told him at one point that the state could stop sending school buses because the agency was going to bring in helicopters and use them instead of the commercial buses that still weren't there.

Blanco told Kleinpeter to ignore those instructions.

"She said, 'I'll be damned. You keep loading the wagons on the school buses,'" Kleinpeter said.

Now, I do not know if all of this is true, and without further corroboration, skeptics could raise reasons to doubt this account. Still, it raises some of the same questions I have asked before, especially about the feds asserting primacy. It also presents the possibility that the biggest problem in the federal response was red tape, especially since FEMA was made part of DHS.

Karl Rove is still a reprobate.

I said it before, and I will say it again: Karl Rove is a reprobate. The latest evidence shows that Karl broke the law (again) and then did something that that was none of his damn business and not within his authority.

Breaking the law

• Taxes and homesteads
  

On September 3, 2005, the Washington Post published an article entitled "Rove Not Entitled to D.C. Homestead Deduction." Here is the opening of the article:

Presidential adviser Karl Rove may live in Washington. But in his heart -- and for voting purposes -- he remains a Texan. Which means he is not legally entitled to the homestead deduction and property tax cap he's been getting on his Palisades home for the past 3 1/2 years.

This week, the D.C. tax collector was alerted to the problem. And Rove agreed to reimburse the District for an estimated $3,400 in back taxes, city officials said.

It turns out that in 2002, the law in D.C. changed, allowing a homestead exemption to be claimed only for residents who are not registered to vote somewhere else, and Karl has been registered to vote in Texas since that time. And this is where the spin machine starts flinging bullshit.

The D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue has tried to take the blame. In a letter to Rove, chief tax assessor Thomas W. Branham said the following: ""OTR failed to rescind the benefit when the law changed. As a result of OTR's error, the property inadvertently received tax deductions for which you no longer qualified." White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said, "When Mr. Rove purchased the home in January 2001, he qualified for the exemption. He was not made aware of the changes in D.C. law. Now that it has been brought to his attention, he is making restitution. He certainly was not trying to mislead anybody." This is crap because of a little thing known as constructive notice. Every citizen is deemed to have constructive notice of the public laws. In other words, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Thus, even if the Office of Tax and Revenue made a mistake, Rove was charged with notice of the change in the law, meaning the Office of Tax and Revenue was under no obligation to make Rove aware of the law. So basically Rove waited until he got caught to become a good citizen.

I am curious as to why Branham wrote his letter. My guess is that it was out of fear that Rove would seek some sort of retribution if such a letter had not been written. If that seems too petty to be possible, read the next section and then tell me what you think...

Oh, but Karl committed more trangressions. As the Washington Post noted, Rove had a home in Austin until he sold it in 2003, and he claimed a homestead exemption on that home until it was sold. That means that Rove was claiming a homestead exemption on two homes in separate jurisdictions. Guess what? That is illegal. I suppose that we will soon hear Erin Healy say it is the fault of the governmental entities that Rove did not know this.

But wait, there's more...

• Voter registration
  

Rove determined that he would forego the D.C. homestead exemption so he could keep his Texas voting status. Currently, Rove is registered to vote in Kerr County, Texas (which is in the heart of the Texas Hill Country, which is heaven on earth, in my humble Texas-centric opinion). It turns out that Rove owns two rental properties there, and that could be a problem, because in Texas, registering to vote in a county where you do not live is against the law (see §§ 13.001 and 13.007 of the Texas Election Code). Section 1.015 of the Texas Election Code defines "residence."

(a) In this code, "residence" means domicile, that is, one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence.

(b) Residence shall be determined in accordance with the common-law rules, as enunciated by the courts of this state, except as otherwise provided by this code.

(c) A person does not lose the person's residence by leaving the person's home to go to another place for temporary purposes only.

(d) A person does not acquire a residence in a place to which the person has come for temporary purposes only and without the intention of making that place the person's home.

While under this definition one cannot conclusively say that Rove violated the law, the evidence weighs heavily in that direction. As the September 3 Washington Post article noted,

But as far as the locals know, the couple have never actually lived in either of two tiny rental cottages Rove claims as his residence on Texas voter registration rolls. The largest is 814 square feet and valued by the county at about $25,000.

"I've been here 10 years and I've never seen him. There are only, like, three grocery stores in town. You'd think you'd at least see him at the HEB" grocery, said Greg Shrader, editor and publisher of the Kerrville Daily Times.

The San Antonio Express presented further evidence in a September 10 article:

The two small stone cottages owned by Rove and wife Darby are part of a bed and breakfast complex overlooking the Guadalupe River outside Ingram.

When the Roves aren't there — which locals say is most of the time — they are rented to guests of nearby River Oaks Lodge, which the Roves once owned as well.

The nearest neighbor, Bill Petty, estimated he'd seen Karl Rove there about five times since 2000, mostly near holidays.

"We see him out walking around getting a signal on the cell phone more than anything," said Petty, 65.

*******

Described by some as the second most powerful man in Washington, Rove's name didn't resonate with some Kerr County residents this week.

"Never heard of him," Jim West, 50, said as he munched on two sausage rolls at The Dam Store about a mile from Rove's cottage.

Storeowner Richard Land, 52, knew the Rove name, but not the profile that accompanied it.

"I wouldn't know him if he walked in and slapped me in the face," he said.

This article also quoted Tom Mock, Chairman of the Kerr County Republican Party, as saying that he has never met Rove and isn't sure he would recognize Rove if their paths crossed.

As I said, none of this is conclusive, for a key under § 1.015 is whether a person "intends to return after any temporary absence." However, as shown above, it looks like Rove never established Kerr County as a residence in the first place. And as for his intention to live in either of the two small rental properties (494 sq. ft. and 814 sq. ft.), Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, made a very good point: "Karl Rove doesn't intend to live there. He's a very rich man. He's wouldn't live in an 814-square-foot cottage."

Mind your own business.

The September 3 Washington Post article contained the following paragraph:

Down in Texas, when you register to vote in a place where you don't actually live, the county prosecutor can come after you for voter fraud, said Elizabeth Reyes, an attorney with the elections division of the Texas Secretary of State. Rove's rental cottage "doesn't sound like a residence to me, because it's not a fixed place of habitation," she said. "If it's just property that they own, ownership doesn't make that a residence."

Under Texas law, Reyes's statements are correct. About a week later, the Washington Post ran a correction to this article:

A Sept. 3 article about whether presidential adviser Karl Rove had legal residency in Texas and a follow-up item Sept. 7 were mistaken in reporting that an attorney with the elections division of the Texas secretary of state's office was speaking specifically about Rove when she described state residency requirements. The attorney, Elizabeth Reyes, was not asked about Rove by name. The articles also should have included Reyes's statement that an individual's intent to return to Texas is a primary factor in qualifying for residency.

Why does any of this matter? It turns out that shortly after the September 3, Reyes no longer had a job. As reported by the Washington Post on September 10,

Scott Haywood, a spokesman for Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams, confirmed yesterday that Reyes is no longer employed, but he declined to provide details, saying it was a personnel matter. Haywood had said late last Saturday that Reyes "was not authorized to speak on behalf of the agency."

Reyes provided more details. She said she was fired for violating the Secretary of State's press policy.

"The policy allows us to talk to members of the media," she said. "The policy says if it's a controversial issue or a special issue, it needs to be forwarded on to someone else. Just talking to the media doesn't violate it, as I read it. . . . Karl Rove didn't come up. It wasn't something you could classify as controversial."

Reyes's conclusion is at the least reasonable, as the Post admitted that the reporter never mentioned Rove by name. However, the Post also stated that in a second interview with Reyes, the reporter did "inquir[e]...about a presidential adviser who had moved from Texas to Washington." Still, there were no questions about Rove specifically, and Reyes did not use Rove's name. So why did she get fired?

The Dallas Morning News provided some insight in a September 16 article entitled "Lawyer was fired after Rove called."

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally called the Texas secretary of state about a newspaper story quoting a staff lawyer about whether Mr. Rove was eligible to vote in the state.

The lawyer was subsequently fired.

Secretary of State Roger Williams said that he decided to dismiss the lawyer after talking with Mr. Rove but that the White House adviser didn't request that he do so.

"Absolutely not," said Mr. Williams, a longtime supporter of President Bush and a major GOP fundraiser.

Yeah, right. Anyone believing that will be interested to know I have some more beachfront property in Wichita Falls for sale.

How petty can you get? A lawyer says something that correctly states the law and does not mention Rove or the specific properties he owns and Rove has her fired.

And that presents an irony of ironies. If the Washington Post reporter is telling the truth when she says she told Reyes that the inquiry was about a Presidential adviser, it means that Karl Rove got all bent out of shape about a matter in which his name was not specifically said, and yet he claims that saying "Wilson's wife" gets him off the hook for outing Valerie Plame.

What an asshole.

The Cowboys choke against the Redskins.

What a collapse by the 'Boys. Two touchdowns on long passes in the last 3:45 of the game. Roy Williams needs to learn his role as a safety, especially since his ass got torched on the same pattern twice for Washington touchdowns. Larry Allen needs to be benched for stupidity, as his holding call deep in Washington territory shot the wheels off a drive and caused Dallas to settle for a field goal instead of a touchdown that would have put the game out of reach. Flozell Adams deserves the same fate for a holding call on a play that would have given Dallas a first down and allowed the Cowboys to then run out the clock. Drew Bledsoe consistently underthrew open recievers in the 4th quarter.

What a pitiful showing.

Analysis of Bush's speech

Look out--I am actually going to say some nice things about Bush.

General comments

His speech tonight was good. His delivery was much better than usual. The tone and mood were appropriate and good.

One of the things that annoys me greatly about Bush speeches is the constant repetition of catch phrases, but there was a lack of that tonight (or at least it was greatly reduced).

Another thing that annoys me about most Bush speeches is the presence of lofty language without any meaningful substance beneath them. This was also reduced tonight, primarily because Bush offered some defined proposals.

And...Bush again accepted responsibility for the shortcomings of the federal response.

Because of the foregoing, I thought Bush did a good job tonight. However, I have many questions, and one correction.

The correction concerns what Bush said about New Orleans funerals. He said that there is a tradition in funerals for jazz musicians. That is not accurate. The traditional New Orleans funeral is for everyone, not just musicians. Nonetheless, what he said about the first and second lines was really good. Whoever wrote that part of the speech deserves a lot of credit.

Before getting to the questions, I have an observation that was echoed by Chris Matthews immediately after the speech when he said that the speech sounded like something LBJ or FDR would have given (that's for you, Ray).

Questions

Now for the questions. Bush made many proposals as to what the federal government is going to do, and my first question is how are we going to pay for all this? This is particularly pertinent given our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the enormous federal deficit that already exists.

Bush also expressly said that the recovery and rebuilding process now and in the future will require greater federal authority. This goes right back to my claim that the federal government had already asserted such primacy before Katrina. And now Bush wants even greater federal authority. I am interested to know what people think about this.

A related question is how is all of this going to be organized? Given the previous paragraph, the federal government will be in charge, and to say that does not fill me with confidence is an understatement--witness the current situation and Iraq.

Bush also placed great emphasis on entrpreneurs in the recovery process. Does this mean that the Bush administration is going to start doing things that are favorable to entrpreneurs and small businesses? Speaking as a self-employed person, I'll believe it when I see it. Anyone who wants to dispute that this administration has greatly favored big business needs a serious reality check.

As a general matter, is Bush really going to follow through on everything he said? Judging just from his demeanor tonight, I would say "yes," but his record again does not give me confidence--witness the faith-based initiative (discussed in a section of this post).

The last question raises my one major complaint about the speech: why tie the war on terrorism to the themes of this speech? That is part of the repetition that so irritates me. Bringing up terrorism distracted from the central messages of the speech, and it was unnecessary.

Conclusion

In any event, this was a good speech. While I have serious questions and doubts, I hope that it marks the start of a successful recovery and rebuilding effort.

Something to keep in mind prior to Bush's speech tonight

I must admit that I was shocked--and I am not exaggerating--when Bush said the following two days ago: "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."

And for those who wonder why I was shocked, David Brooks gave a great explanation during a September 11 appearance on "The Chris Matthews Show." And just to be thorough (albeit repetitive of other posts), you can read Brooks's bio--and conservative credentials--here.

Brooks had this to say about the Bush administration's PR strategy:

MATTHEWS: Do you think there's a problem with this? I remember when the president wrote in his diary--his father, President Bush senior--"you know, I picked [former Vice President Dan] Quayle the first time around, and I wish I hadn't. But I'm stuck with him, and I can't admit it." Is there a problem with this president simply admitting, "I put the wrong people at certain jobs, I didn't get back fast enough to the White House, I wasn't calling the orders fast enough?"

BROOKS: From Day One, they had decided that our public relations is not going to be honest. Privately, they admit mistakes all the time. Publicly--and I've had this debate with them since Day One; I always say admit a mistake, people will give you credit--

MATTHEWS: Who do you debate this with?

BROOKS: With people who work in the White House.

MATTHEWS: I thought you were talking about with the president in the back room.

[laughter]

BROOKS: Not with him, but they represent what he believes, which is, if you admit a mistake, you get no credit from your enemies, and then you open up another week's story, because the admission of a little mistake leads to the admission of big mistakes and another week's story. It's totally tactical and totally insincere.

(emphasis added). Now tell me something I didn't already know.

Another part of the rantgent

The previous post examines whether DHS had previously asserted primacy in disaster response situations. A related question is whether Gov. Blanco of Louisiana deserved more of the blame for what happened in New Orleans. Well, to some extent that answer has been objectively answered in the negative.

On September 7, Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) sent a letter to the Congressional Research Service asking whether the facts show that Blanco did what she needed to do in a timely manner to get federal aid and assistance. I was going to conduct my own analysis of this, but now the CRS has done it for me.

Before detailing the response, here is some info on the Congressional Research Service. The CRS is a part of the Library of Congress. It's purpose is descibed on the Library's website:

About CRS

The Congressional Research Service is the public policy resear ch arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

History and Mission

Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress. CRS has been carrying out this mission since 1914, when it was first established as the Legislative Reference Service. Renamed the Congressional Research Service by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS is committed to providing the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable analysis, research and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.

(emphasis added). Can you tell that I want to stress that the CRS is nonpartisan?

With this is mind, let's take a look at the CRS analysis. The memo details what is required under federal law, which is primarily statutes known as the Stafford Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Next comes an examination of what Blanco did, which is primarily contained in a letter she wrote to Bush. That letter shows that Blanco declared a state of emergency on Aug. 26--one day before Bush (you can see the official declaration here). Blanco's letter also stated the following:"Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster." The letter goes on to state what steps the Governor had taken.

After looking at all the relevant facts, CRS came to this conclusion:

From the above review of the statutory authorities under the Stafford Act, the letters of Governor Blanco to President Bush requesting first a declaration of emergency and then a major disaster declaration in anticipation of the effects of Hurricane Katrina, as well as the President’s responses to those requests in declaring a state of emergency with respect to Louisiana effective August 28, 2005, and continuing, it would appear that the Governor did take the steps necessary to request emergency and disaster declarations for the State of Louisiana in anticipation of Hurricane Katrina.

A tangent from the extended rant (a "rantgent" perhaps)

In discussing Bush is like a deer in headlights, I stated that "Part of what Bush and the Republican Congress have done is place primacy on the federal government in more and more areas[,]" and I further asserted that disaster relief was one of those areas.

Let's begin with the crisis management position taken by the Bush administration--and I'm talking about political backlash crisis management. While administration officials keep saying "Let's not play the blame game," they have been pointing the finger at Louisiana state officials, especially Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin. According to BushCo, the state and local officials were supposed to be primarily responsible, failed to notify the feds and ask for help in a timely manner, did nothing to evacuate people, etc. If you want a detailed rundown of this latest bit of "if you do it, it is bad, but it's good if we do it" (and I'm speaking of the blame game), go to Talking Points Memo and its progeny TPM Cafe.

Much of the criticism of the federal government has been aimed at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). FEMA used to be a cabinet-level agency, and then the Homeland Security Act made FEMA part of the Department of Homeland Security. With this in mind, let us now take a look at what the Department of Homeland Security its ownself has to say about its role in responding to natural disasters.

The DHS website defines its mission as follows: "We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation." (emphasis added). This definitely applies to natural disasters, as the same web page lists the following as a strategic goal: "Response -- Lead, manage and coordinate the national response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies." (emphasis added).

On February 24, 2004, DHS published "Securing Our Homeland; U.S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan." This document contains some strong promises:

The Nation will know it can rely on us to respond in time of need. We will provide and coordinate a quick and effective response when state, local and tribal resources are overwhelmed by disasters and emergencies. We will bring the right people and resources to bear where and when they are needed most, including medical, urban search and rescue, and incident management capabilities, and will assist all mariners in peril. We will provide integrated logistical support to ensure a rapid and effective response and coordinate among Department of Homeland Security and other federal, state and local operations centers consistent with national incident command protocols. We will work with our partners to create and implement a National Incident Management System and a single, all-discipline National Response Plan that will strengthen the Nation’s ability to respond to catastrophic events of all types, including terrorism.

(emphasis added).

In December 2004, DHS published the comprehensive National Response Plan. Page 9 (p. 27 of the .pdf document) has the following paragraph:

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established DHS to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies; and minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies. The act also designates DHS as “a focal point regarding natural and manmade crises and emergency planning.”

(emphasis added). The Nation Response Plan also says on p. 43 (p. 61 of the .pdf document) that "The NRP establishes policies, procedures, and mechanisms for proactive Federal response to catastrophic events."

Read all of the above again and try to tell me that DHS has not asserted that it--not the state and local authorities--will be in charge of response to a major natural disaster. Look, I am not arguing one way or the other that the feds should be in charge. What I am arguing is that the DHS, the department that is now claiming that the state and local authorities failed to take charge, has expressly said that it has that responsibility AND has assured the Nation that it would meet that responsibility.

From the world of sports talking heads

I just happened to turn on my TV for the beginning of Jim Rome's show on ESPN. I generally cannot stand Rome. I think one of the great moments in sports was when Jim Everett kicked his ass on the air. However, Rome is doing something for which I have to give him big props. Anytime he talks about Terrell Owens, instead of calling him "T.O.," he calls him "To" (as in the word "to"). That is funny and gives Owens all the respect he deserves. And by the way, this is not a pro-Cowboys/anti-Eagles deal. Owens is a punk, especially for the way he has treated Donovan McNabb. Even though part of my genetic makeup is to dislike the Eagles, I am a huge McNabb fan. Not only is he one of the best QBs in the NFL, he is a first-class person.

The extended rant rolls on thanks to Kevin Drum

For a few days I did not read any of the major blogs I usually read, but today I surfed over to Political Animal and found a veritable plethora of useful information. I especially liked a September 6 post by Kevin Drum entitled "Bush and Katrina." Kevin has a documented timeline showing how FEMA has been turned into FUBAR by Bush. The concluding paragraphs concisely make a point that I now do not have to write:

So: A crony with no relevant experience was installed as head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans were slashed even though it was known to be one of the top three risks in the country. FEMA was deliberately downsized as part of the Bush administration's conservative agenda to reduce the role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA's preparation and planning functions were taken away.

Actions have consequences. No one could predict that a hurricane the size of Katrina would hit this year, but the slow federal response when it did happen was no accident. It was the result of four years of deliberate Republican policy and budget choices that favor ideology and partisan loyalty at the expense of operational competence. It's the Bush administration in a nutshell.

(emphasis added). Actions do indeed have consequences, but what continually astounds me about the Bush administration is that it almost always takes actions which ignore the obvious possible consequences. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this kind of conduct at the least constitutes criminal negligence.

Next part of the extended rant: Bush is like a deer in headlights

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch...

Let's take a look at some facts from August 27 to August 31, including Bush's itenerary.

On Saturday, August 27, Bush "declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing."

On Sunday, August 28, Bush spoke about the Iraqi constitution and hurricane Katrina. Regarding Katrina, Bush said the following:

Yesterday, I signed a disaster declaration for the state of Louisiana, and this morning I signed a disaster declaration for the state of Mississippi. These declarations will allow federal agencies to coordinate all disaster relief efforts with state and local officials. We will do everything in our power to help the people in the communities affected by this storm.

Hurricane Katrina is now designated a category five hurricane. We cannot stress enough the danger this hurricane poses to Gulf Coast communities. I urge all citizens to put their own safety and the safety of their families first by moving to safe ground. Please listen carefully to instructions provided by state and local officials.

(emphasis added).

Long before the hurricane approached the coast, it was well known that the levee system in New Orleans was built to withstand a Category 3 hurricane. As noted, the day before the hurricane struck, Bush knew it was a Category 5 storm.

On Monday, August 29 at approximately 6:oo a.m., Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast. By that time, the storm was Category 4. That morning, Bush attended a “Conversation on Medicare” in El Mirage, Arizona at 10:06 a.m. Mountain Standard Time. That’s 11:06 a.m. Central Standard Time–the time zone which covers New Orleans.

The flooding which devastated New Orleans happened when several levees broke or were breached. According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the first of those breaches occurred late Monday morning, which is to say about the time the "Conversation on Medicare" began.

Other media reports I have found say the breaches occurred in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

In any event, at 11:04 a.m. Central Standard Time on Tuesday August 30, Bush was in San Diego giving a speech commemorating VJ Day. He devoted two paragraphs to the Hurricane, and then spent much of the speech talking about the war on terror.

After the speech (11:34 a.m. Central Standard Time) on August 30, Scott McClellan announced that Bush

did make the decision this morning to return to D.C. tomorrow -- tomorrow, after we return this afternoon to Crawford. Tomorrow morning, I expect the President will probably participate in a conference call with some federal officials to receive the latest update and make sure we're doing all we can to coordinate the response efforts. And then we will depart around 10:40 a.m. tomorrow from Waco. He'll return to Washington.

Originally, Bush was not going to return to Washington until Friday. So, in other words, Bush decided to cut short his vacation. McClellan also said the following:

When we return, probably around 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon, the President will chair a White House task force meeting on the response efforts to Hurricane Katrina. The White House has established an interagency task force. It consists to supplement and strengthen our response efforts. The interagency task force will consist of all the relevant agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, and others. Those are some of the agencies that will be included. The Department of Energy will be included in it, obviously. And that meeting will take place at 4:00 p.m. tomorrow.

On August 31, at 4:11 p.m. Central Standard Time, Bush, now back in Washington, gave his first public speech devoted exclusively to hurricane Katrina.

This chain of events is simply shocking to me.

Bush did not get back to Washington and devote his time exclusively to to the recovery effort until two days after the storm hit. Two days before the storm hit, he declared a state of emergency. The day before the storm hit, he knew that Katrina was a Category 5 storm, and it was known that the levee system in New Orleans could withstand at best a Category 3 hurricane. He also said that it could not be stressed enough how dangerous the storm was. There is no reasonable way to claim that he did not know the storm would strike land by Monday. And yet, he decided that it was far more important for him to go to Arizona to talk about Medicare.

There was a report available to the entire world that the first levee failure occurred late Monday morning. By Monday afternoon, there is no way that he was unaware of the damage caused by Katrina--not just in New Orleans, but in the other areas of the Gulf Coast that were devastated. And yet, he decided it was far more important to go to San Diego to deliver a speech that was more about the war on terror than VJ Day. Does anyone think that the veterans of WWII--who will always deserve tribute--would place a higher priority on a speech commemorating that victory than on having the President deal with perhaps the greatest natural disaster in our history? These veterans are part of "The Greatest Generation" which selflessly defended the security of this nation and the lives of its citizens. Does anyone really think they would have minded if the President--the leader of our nation--had decided to skip that speech and instead get right to the business of leading in this time of crisis?

Why in the world did it take our "leader' a full day to decide to cut short his vacation and then take an additional day to get back to Washington to start taking charge?

Un-freaking-believable.

Where have I seen this before?

Oh, now I remember. I saw it in "Farenheit 911." It was the footage of Bush being told that our country had just been attacked by terrorists and sitting there without a damn clue what to do for minute after minute after minute after minute. I don't care what anybody thinks about Michael Moore or "Farenheit 911." I defy anyone to watch that footage and not be appalled. As Bill Maher said in his latest HBO special,

Seriously--seven minutes is a long time...

*******

[I]f you defend a President for sitting there for even one second after he is told America is under attack, you are loyal to a person more than you are to the truth, to a principle, or to your country.

[A]ny President, of any party, would have gotten up. Democrat, Republican, Whig--doesn't matter. President Van Buren--"America's under attack"--would have gotten up. President Reagan--"America's under attack"--would have gotten up. FDR would have gotten up--he couldn't even get up!

*******

So, when you talk about Homeland Security, I would think it would start with how a President reacts to the country being under attack[.]

While I agree with Bill, I think Homeland Security would continue with how a President reacts to a major disaster on our own soil. Waiting over two days to "take charge" while instead making two other appearances simply doesn't cut it.