Subj : Re: Brown Speaks...
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Ken McElhaney
Date : Fri Sep 16 2005 08:28:26

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape


TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote:
> 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...

Again, he resigned and I don't think he's getting another job in the
Bush administration.  There is no reason for him to hold back against
Chertoff or anyone in the Bush administration if he felt that there was
someone to blame.

Personally, I think he, like the governor was simply overwhelmed by the
situation and both were slow to turn over the job to those that could
get it done quickly (like the US military).  Brown was late in
informing his superiors and Blanco did not sign off on having US troops
involved quickly enough.

>
> > > 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.

Of course it does, as it would under ANY congressional investigation,
the majority rules.

It's a huge mistake on the Democrats part to not participate. All it
does is further the notion that Democrats are playing partisan politics
and are more interested in Bush-bashing.

My advice, play ball and go screaming to the media which traditionally
is more than happy to let them vent.


> 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.

I'm trying to imagine anyone in Congress pushing a bill that cuts
spending on levees so that their district can get a new highway
overpass and NO ONE from the media pointing it out.  Nope, no way. You
consistantly underestimate the power of the media (particularly
Democrat-friendly media like the three networks, CNN, etc.) to lamblast
those types.

> 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.

As it has been for a long time, no matter which party was in charge, it
is the right of the legislative branch to conduct ANY investigation of
the executive branch.

Please list those in the legislative branch that were directly involved
in the decision-making process in the local, state, FEMA, or Homeland
Security office level.  If you can, then they should step aside and let
those who had NOTHING to do with it sit in.

Ken

.