Subj : Re: Brown Speaks...
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : TNW7Z7Z7Z12345
Date : Thu Sep 15 2005 20:02:16

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Ken McElhaney wrote:
> 
> TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote:
> > Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, the horse-show judge who's on everyone's "go to hell" list speaks
> > > out;
> > > http://tinyurl.com/9fa4w
> > >
> > > Not surprisingly, he puts most of the blame on Blanco. Not
> > > surprisingly, Blanco denies it.
> > >
> > > Ken
> >
> >
> > This is kind of interesting (not meant as an argument - just found it
> > interesting).  From KnightRidder.
> >
> > http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12637172.htm
> >
> > What if Chertoff is letting Brown be the fall-guy, and Brown is blaming
> > Blanco because he can't blame Chertoff?
> 
> Well, he resigned. How is he unable to blame Chertoff? Does Chertoff
> have some hold on him that we're not aware of?

Blame the head of homeland security? If he blames someone in LA, his
reputation doesn't get any worse than it already is.  If he blames a
higher up and the Bush admin. isn't happy about it...

 
> > Of course they're all to blame to some degree, but it'll be interesting
> > if the snafus (the sheer number of bureaucratic authorizations required
> > in a time of chaos) started with Chertoff not acting fast enough.
> > Interesting that the Reagan guy was appalled.
> 
> Interesting that Blanco apparently did not ask for federal troops until
> that wednesday. Declaring an emergency is not enough, the gov has to
> specifically ask for US troops, otherwise they are prevented from
> direct participation by the Posse Comitatus Act.
> http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PosseComitatus.html
> 
> Hopefully, an investigation that rips into Brown, FEMA, & Bush will
> take the time to have Blanco answer that little question...and a few
> others.
> 
> > Sadly, since an independent investigation will never be permitted, we'll
> > never know.
 
> Well, I see that the Democrats are in unison over this. Considering the
> history of independant investigations (would you like Ken Starr to lead
> it, perchance?) it certainly seems more reasonable to start with a
> bi-partisan congressional investigation since Congress had little
> (really, nothing) to do with who screwed up where in this case.
 
> Besides, with so many Republican-president-wannabees for 2008 sitting
> in the Senate with mouths watering to rip into the Bush administration
> over this (to set themselves apart from this screw-up), why would you
> think it would not be fair? 
> Ken

I don't mean a special prosecutor like Ken Starr.  I mean an
investigating body like the 9/11 Commission, which had equivalent
numbers of Democrats and Republicans, and most important, no lawmakers
currently in office.  The committee they're currently proposing has more
Republicans than Democrats, which is why the Democrats are refusing to
participate.  And I don't want lawmakers investigating themselves - some
of this could lead back to spending cuts for FEMA, spending on pork
projects less important to our security and economy than shoring up
those levees, etc.   There's lots people might want to hide (going back
years).  The investigating group should be separate from government and
with the same number from each party.

 
- TNW

[To e-mail me, remove 12345 from my address.]

.