Last week I saw Bush on TV with his pal "Brownie", the head of FEMA, and he
was praising him for doing such a good job handling things in Louisiana.
Days later he's sent back to Washington and his job is given to a Coast
Guard admiral. Today Brown turned in his resignation. That is so typical of
Bush and his monumental hypocrisy and dishonesty. He's out there telling
everyone how great a job his appointee is doing when he knows the guy has
messed everything up. Then after saying what a great job he's done, a week
later he has the guy resign. That's George Bush for you. An honest man would
have told the truth about his appointee from the start and apologized, but
not Bush. Always lie and deceive if he might look bad is his usual method.
And this is the guy who was supposed to bring back honor and integrity to
the White House. Hah!

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

...a bunch of political crap with no metal content.

Vaughn

Hawke wrote:
Last week I saw Bush on TV with his pal "Brownie", the head of FEMA, and he
was praising him for doing such a good job handling things in Louisiana.
Days later he's sent back to Washington and his job is given to a Coast
Guard admiral. Today Brown turned in his resignation. That is so typical of
Bush and his monumental hypocrisy and dishonesty. He's out there telling
everyone how great a job his appointee is doing when he knows the guy has
messed everything up. Then after saying what a great job he's done, a week
later he has the guy resign. That's George Bush for you. An honest man would
have told the truth about his appointee from the start and apologized, but
not Bush. Always lie and deceive if he might look bad is his usual method.
And this is the guy who was supposed to bring back honor and integrity to
the White House. Hah!

Well, that's one spin. I took it as letting the guy off easy and letting
him save face. Shame on George for being a nice guy?
He just can't win with people who have made up their minds to hate.

So would you hire the guy now? Trust him with your money and your life?

I don't vote for a President to be a nice guy...I vote for him to get
the job done.

So far, this is not happening.

And the money that is being wasted is yours and mine.

The projected hundreds of billions for rebuilding...you and I will be
paying it.

The lives that have been lost are your fellow Americans.

They could have been yours or your family.

So how many more incompetent fools can you and I afford?

TMT

Rex B wrote:

Hawke wrote:

Last week I saw Bush on TV with his pal "Brownie", the head of FEMA,
and he
was praising him for doing such a good job handling things in Louisiana.
Days later he's sent back to Washington and his job is given to a Coast
Guard admiral. Today Brown turned in his resignation. That is so
typical of
Bush and his monumental hypocrisy and dishonesty. He's out there telling
everyone how great a job his appointee is doing when he knows the guy has
messed everything up. Then after saying what a great job he's done, a
week
later he has the guy resign. That's George Bush for you. An honest man
would
have told the truth about his appointee from the start and apologized,
but
not Bush. Always lie and deceive if he might look bad is his usual
method.
And this is the guy who was supposed to bring back honor and integrity to
the White House. Hah!


Well, that's one spin. I took it as letting the guy off easy and letting
him save face. Shame on George for being a nice guy?
He just can't win with people who have made up their minds to hate.

I don't think hate has anything to do with it. Being a nice guy? Yeah,
right!

Remember what he did with George Tenet and Paul Bremer, two Bush cronies
who both failed spectacularly at their jobs.

If I am not mistaken they both received the Medal of Freedom, the
nation's highest civilian honor. Not a bad reward for failure.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Unfortunately, residents outside of New Orleans probably never heard of the
the local mayor, police, etc. till this situation had already developed,
much less being eligible to vote for them. Yet they were (should have
been?) the first line of help in terms of prevention (levees, maintaining
pumps, having a proper evacuation plan in place, having some sort of
emergency communication, .....)




"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
So would you hire the guy now? Trust him with your money and your life?

I don't vote for a President to be a nice guy...I vote for him to get
the job done.

So far, this is not happening.

And the money that is being wasted is yours and mine.

The projected hundreds of billions for rebuilding...you and I will be
paying it.

The lives that have been lost are your fellow Americans.

They could have been yours or your family.

So how many more incompetent fools can you and I afford?

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
So would you hire the guy now? Trust him with your money and your life?

I don't vote for a President to be a nice guy...I vote for him to get
the job done.

So far, this is not happening.

And the money that is being wasted is yours and mine.

The projected hundreds of billions for rebuilding...you and I will be
paying it.

The lives that have been lost are your fellow Americans.

They could have been yours or your family.

Granted, but it wasn't Bush's fault. He declared a federal state of
emergency before the hurricane even hit. The locals authority did not
even implement their federally-required evacuation plan. The local
authorities failed to provide first, or even 2nd response. Then the
Governor sat on her ass rather than authorize federal intervention.

So how many more incompetent fools can you and I afford?

You need to address that to the rotors of Louisiana and New Orleans.

Just as a small boy is fixated on his penis, you and yours seem to be
fixated on GWB. Grow up.

Rex B wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
So would you hire the guy now? Trust him with your money and your life?

I don't vote for a President to be a nice guy...I vote for him to get
the job done.

So far, this is not happening.

And the money that is being wasted is yours and mine.

The projected hundreds of billions for rebuilding...you and I will be
paying it.

The lives that have been lost are your fellow Americans.

They could have been yours or your family.

Granted, but it wasn't Bush's fault. He declared a federal state of
emergency before the hurricane even hit. The locals authority did not
even implement their federally-required evacuation plan. The local
authorities failed to provide first, or even 2nd response. Then the
Governor sat on her ass rather than authorize federal intervention.

The Federal government has, and always has had, authority to
intervene without authorization of a governor. Absent the
governor being incapacited, as by the disaster itself, that
should never be necessary for the Federal government to act
independently of or over the objection of the state government.
This time it was.

--

FF

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:27:10 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Rex
B quickly quoth:

-snip of hawke rant-
Well, that's one spin. I took it as letting the guy off easy and letting
him save face. Shame on George for being a nice guy?

I took it as the guy (GW) being himself. Y'know, not knowing WTF was
going on in his country with his appointees whom he should be tracking
very closely or, at the very least, with a bit of sense.


He just can't win with people who have made up their minds to hate.

Damn, that's getting old... Look, I'm neither a liberal nor Democrat
and I didn't start out hating Shrubby, I just didn't vote for him (or
Kerry.) GW's (damned well) -earned- that criticism from so many folks.

Googled from "bush appointees" or "list of bush appointees"
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8240
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050913column.php

and, quite likely tomorrow's news:
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1175&catid=7


----
- Nice perfume. Must you marinate in it? -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

In article , Hawke says...

Last week I saw Bush on TV with his pal "Brownie", the head of FEMA, and he
was praising him for doing such a good job handling things in Louisiana.
Days later he's sent back to Washington and his job is given to a Coast
Guard admiral. Today Brown turned in his resignation.

Actually this is the first administration member that W has fired
for incompetence. So you know he *really* screwed up. Everyone
else just gets a pat on the head.

I knew the guy was outtathere when the 'great job' comment happened.
This is standard politico-speak in the country. You can always tell
when somebody's gonna get canned when the screwup gets praised so
highly.

"A terrific member of our team"

or

"We couldn't manage without him"

or

"a close and dear personal friend."

Get the parachute ready....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Got the story just right did you ?

Wrong.

Bush was in Mississippi at the time when a reporter asked who was going to
replace Brown - he side stepped the question as he didn't know what was going
on. Brown had tendered his second resignation. Upon an intel connection to
Washington the facts were determined and a replacement - a good man a leader
of men... was appointed.

Bush was the last man out of his long time ago oil company. He found everyone
a job with his friends in the industry before closing up.

I don't know where the LEFT gets the idea that every level of every government
job must be a do-all commander in charge. He relied on his people and was
folded deep into homeland security which further limited and actually allowed
expanded access to need.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Hawke wrote:
Last week I saw Bush on TV with his pal "Brownie", the head of FEMA, and he
was praising him for doing such a good job handling things in Louisiana.
Days later he's sent back to Washington and his job is given to a Coast
Guard admiral. Today Brown turned in his resignation. That is so typical of
Bush and his monumental hypocrisy and dishonesty. He's out there telling
everyone how great a job his appointee is doing when he knows the guy has
messed everything up. Then after saying what a great job he's done, a week
later he has the guy resign. That's George Bush for you. An honest man would
have told the truth about his appointee from the start and apologized, but
not Bush. Always lie and deceive if he might look bad is his usual method.
And this is the guy who was supposed to bring back honor and integrity to
the White House. Hah!

Hawke



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

So you are saying that the President is a liar for admitting guilt?

And if he is not admitting guilt then isn't he then lying?

Do you think Laura is sleeping well knowing she is sharing a bed with
an acknowledged murderer?

Sorry but the majority of Americans (including George himself) agree
with me...it IS Bush's fault.

Hundreds of Americans are dead and their blood is on little Georgie's
hands.

But then again maybe you could help me, I ...I mean a friend of mine
has this problem, you know, like he needs to reduce the size of his
penis. Since you seem to have found a solution, well could you tell me
how you reduced yours? Register as a Republican? Well, I think I ...I
mean my friend will have to live with his err problem...after all, I
...I mean my friend IS an AMERICAN.

What is it with Republicans, small boys and penises?

Quite right.

A small detail that many smaller Republican minds are trying to avoid
addressing.

It would not surprise me at all if in the end the resignation of the
President occurs.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Quite right.

A small detail that many smaller Republican minds are trying to avoid
addressing.

It would not surprise me at all if in the end the resignation of the
President occurs.


Dream on!

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Well, that's one spin. I took it as letting the guy off easy and letting
him save face. Shame on George for being a nice guy?
He just can't win with people who have made up their minds to hate.

Believing someone has done a bad job or is not competent at what they are
doing is simply making a judgment based on observation and experience. Hate
has nothing to do with it. Claiming that people that think Bush is doing a
bad job is hate is only a stupid Republican trick to try to invalidate
legitimate criticism of him. Bush has messed up one thing after another and
that's why the public's opinion of him is at a record low. According to you,
most of the public hates Bush now because they are critical of what he has
done. Is that right?

Hawke

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
So would you hire the guy now? Trust him with your money and your life?

I don't vote for a President to be a nice guy...I vote for him to get
the job done.

So far, this is not happening.

And the money that is being wasted is yours and mine.

The projected hundreds of billions for rebuilding...you and I will be
paying it.

The lives that have been lost are your fellow Americans.

They could have been yours or your family.

So how many more incompetent fools can you and I afford?

TMT

Well, according to his followers, Bush has done a very good job. How do you
argue with that?

Hawke

Let us just see.

JFK never showed up when I was in a 6' flood at my front door !
No help was sent from Washington.
No relocation to a safe haven.
No debit cards from anyone.
We got sandbags from the Army - the local ones.
They came by duce and a half because only they could drive in the mud
(center of the street) and the deep water. Before the flood, we had
to go and get them in a bundle. Oh yea - all of them empty.
The Army delivered full bags.
Low interest loans ? NO.

I know the blame lies upon the head of the power hungry governor who
kept control longer than she should. The help was ordered days before
and SHE kept them out. She was asked firmly again to declare and ask
for help. She did after all was done.

So now tell me when do I get my two debit cards with 20% daily added
from the Demo party ?

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Hawke wrote:
Well, that's one spin. I took it as letting the guy off easy and letting
him save face. Shame on George for being a nice guy?
He just can't win with people who have made up their minds to hate.


Believing someone has done a bad job or is not competent at what they are
doing is simply making a judgment based on observation and experience. Hate
has nothing to do with it. Claiming that people that think Bush is doing a
bad job is hate is only a stupid Republican trick to try to invalidate
legitimate criticism of him. Bush has messed up one thing after another and
that's why the public's opinion of him is at a record low. According to you,
most of the public hates Bush now because they are critical of what he has
done. Is that right?

Hawke



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Hawke wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...

So would you hire the guy now? Trust him with your money and your life?

I don't vote for a President to be a nice guy...I vote for him to get
the job done.

So far, this is not happening.

And the money that is being wasted is yours and mine.

The projected hundreds of billions for rebuilding...you and I will be
paying it.

The lives that have been lost are your fellow Americans.

They could have been yours or your family.

So how many more incompetent fools can you and I afford?

TMT


Well, according to his followers, Bush has done a very good job. How do you
argue with that?

Hawke




According to their respective followers, Stalin, Jim Jones, Jengis Khan,
Nixon, Sadaam Hussein, Khomeini, Pinochet, Hitler and a slew of other
depots were doing a very good job too!

Does that make it so? I think not.


--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On 13 Sep 2005 08:44:08 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

So would you hire the guy now? Trust him with your money and your life?

I don't vote for a President to be a nice guy...I vote for him to get
the job done.


And he lost the election. Get over it already.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 13 Sep 2005 11:39:45 -0700, wrote:


The Federal government has, and always has had, authority to
intervene without authorization of a governor. Absent the
governor being incapacited, as by the disaster itself, that
should never be necessary for the Federal government to act
independently of or over the objection of the state government.
This time it was.


It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?



Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Gunner Asch wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 11:39:45 -0700, wrote:


The Federal government has, and always has had, authority to
intervene without authorization of a governor. Absent the
governor being incapacited, as by the disaster itself, that
should never be necessary for the Federal government to act
independently of or over the objection of the state government.
This time it was.


It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?


Did Eisenhower invoke "The Insurrection Act" when he
sent Army troops to Little Rock?

--

FF

On 14 Sep 2005 01:26:59 -0700, wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 11:39:45 -0700, wrote:


The Federal government has, and always has had, authority to
intervene without authorization of a governor. Absent the
governor being incapacited, as by the disaster itself, that
should never be necessary for the Federal government to act
independently of or over the objection of the state government.
This time it was.


It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?


Did Eisenhower invoke "The Insurrection Act" when he
sent Army troops to Little Rock?


Nope..they were requested by the Little Rock Mayor

"U.S. Congressman Brooks Hays and Little Rock Mayor Woodrow Mann asked
the federal government for help, first in the form of U.S. marshals.
Finally, on September 24, Mann sent a telegram to President Eisenhower
requesting troops. They were dispatched that day and the President
also federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard, taking it away
from the Governor."


Hint...the mayor asked for help to quell civil unrest...a legitimate
action. Part of the Insurrection Act.

Gunner


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article , Martin H. Eastburn
says...

Bush was in Mississippi at the time when a reporter asked who was going to
replace Brown - he side stepped the question as he didn't know what was going
on. Brown had tendered his second resignation. Upon an intel connection to
Washington the facts were determined and a replacement - a good man a leader
of men... was appointed.

There *was* a good man at the job. Too bad he got evicted so that
cronies could come in a collect a paycheck.

I don't know where the LEFT gets the idea that every level of every government
job must be a do-all commander in charge.

Because that's the way it used to be. That's the way we won ww2.
It was rapidly realized that leaders should be put in charge, and there
was no room for incompetents. They were shuffled out and given the
heave-ho.

NObody said 'not my job' or 'I can't do it because of the paperwork.'

Too bad that's gone.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Jim,
This is what passes for leadership these days. Inearly laughed my ass off.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0153-3878r.htm

DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat

By Amy Fagan and Stephen Dinan

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published September 14, 2005



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so
well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said
there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.

Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to
this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina
relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas,
but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.

"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me
the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with
any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.

Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr.
DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down
pretty good."

Congress has passed two hurricane relief bills totaling $62.3 billion,
all of which will be added to the deficit.

Republican leaders have been under pressure from conservative members
and outside watchdog groups to find ways to pay for the Katrina relief. Some
Republicans wanted to offer an amendment, including cuts, to pay for
hurricane spending but were denied the chance under procedural rules.

"This is hardly a well-oiled machine," said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona
Republican. "There's a lot of fat to trim. ... I wonder if we've been
serving in the same Congress."

American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene said federal
spending already was "spiraling out of control" before Katrina, and
conservatives are "increasingly losing faith in the president and the
Republican leadership in Congress."

"Excluding military and homeland security, American taxpayers have
witnessed the largest spending increase under any preceding president and
Congress since the Great Depression," he said.

Mr. Keene said annual nonmilitary and non-homeland security spending
increased $303 billion between fiscal year 2001 and 2005; the acknowledged
federal debt increased more than $2 trillion since fiscal year 2000; and the
2003 Medicare prescription drug bill is estimated to increase the
government's unfunded obligations by $16 trillion.

Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), said
if Mr. DeLay wants to know where to cut, "there are plenty of places to
reduce."

His group soon will release a list of $2 trillion in suggested spending
cuts over the next five years, and he said Congress also could cut the
estimated $20 billion to $25 billion in pet projects that make their way
into must-pass spending bills each year.

CAGW and the Heritage Foundation also suggest rescinding the 6,000-plus
earmarked projects in the recently passed highway bill.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin H.
Eastburn
says...

Bush was in Mississippi at the time when a reporter asked who was going
to
replace Brown - he side stepped the question as he didn't know what was
going
on. Brown had tendered his second resignation. Upon an intel connection
to
Washington the facts were determined and a replacement - a good man a
leader
of men... was appointed.

There *was* a good man at the job. Too bad he got evicted so that
cronies could come in a collect a paycheck.

I don't know where the LEFT gets the idea that every level of every
government
job must be a do-all commander in charge.

Because that's the way it used to be. That's the way we won ww2.
It was rapidly realized that leaders should be put in charge, and there
was no room for incompetents. They were shuffled out and given the
heave-ho.

NObody said 'not my job' or 'I can't do it because of the paperwork.'

Too bad that's gone.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , John R. Carroll
says...

Jim,
This is what passes for leadership these days. Inearly laughed my ass off.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0153-3878r.htm

DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat

Heh. Pretty soon he'll be declaring victory - from jail.

They're getting close and closer....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , John R. Carroll
says...

Jim,
This is what passes for leadership these days. Inearly laughed my ass off.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0153-3878r.htm

DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat


Heh. Pretty soon he'll be declaring victory - from jail.

They're getting close and closer....

Jim



Dream on! If he's going to jail, I'll be growing a full head of hair again.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Gunner Asch wrote:
On 14 Sep 2005 01:26:59 -0700, wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 11:39:45 -0700, wrote:


The Federal government has, and always has had, authority to
intervene without authorization of a governor. Absent the
governor being incapacited, as by the disaster itself, that
should never be necessary for the Federal government to act
independently of or over the objection of the state government.
This time it was.


It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?


Did Eisenhower invoke "The Insurrection Act" when he
sent Army troops to Little Rock?


Nope..they were requested by the Little Rock Mayor

"U.S. Congressman Brooks Hays and Little Rock Mayor Woodrow Mann asked
the federal government for help, first in the form of U.S. marshals.
Finally, on September 24, Mann sent a telegram to President Eisenhower
requesting troops. They were dispatched that day and the President
also federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard, taking it away
from the Governor."


Hint...the mayor asked for help to quell civil unrest...a legitimate
action. Part of the Insurrection Act.


So was that a no or a yes?

Note that Eisenhower "Federalized the ANG, taking it away from
the governor." It sounds like the Governor did not release the
guard to the Feds, any more than Celeste did when the ONG was
sent to Guatamala (for training).

Besdies, ISTR that the use of Federal Troops in Little Rock was
pro-active, to prevent, rather than quell, civil unrest.

Digressing a bit, IWSTM that the use of regular Army troops
in Little Rock violated the Posse-Comitatus (sp?) act, regardless
of who requested them. What did Ike do with the ANG troops?

But I still can't think of anything that ever prohibitted
the Feds from providing disaster relief independently of the
states. That's different from assuming law-enforcement
authority.

Finally and more to the point regardless of past authority the
National Response Plan:

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlib...RPbaseplan.pdf

clearly states that the President may (not must) act
independently of the state government. It should never
be necessary when the state government is not itself
incapacitated. Evidently this time it was necessary.

--

FF

wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:


On 14 Sep 2005 01:26:59 -0700, wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:


On 13 Sep 2005 11:39:45 -0700, wrote:



The Federal government has, and always has had, authority to
intervene without authorization of a governor. Absent the
governor being incapacited, as by the disaster itself, that
should never be necessary for the Federal government to act
independently of or over the objection of the state government.
This time it was.


It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?



Did Eisenhower invoke "The Insurrection Act" when he
sent Army troops to Little Rock?


Nope..they were requested by the Little Rock Mayor

"U.S. Congressman Brooks Hays and Little Rock Mayor Woodrow Mann asked
the federal government for help, first in the form of U.S. marshals.
Finally, on September 24, Mann sent a telegram to President Eisenhower
requesting troops. They were dispatched that day and the President
also federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard, taking it away
from the Governor."


Hint...the mayor asked for help to quell civil unrest...a legitimate
action. Part of the Insurrection Act.




So was that a no or a yes?

Note that Eisenhower "Federalized the ANG, taking it away from
the governor." It sounds like the Governor did not release the
guard to the Feds, any more than Celeste did when the ONG was
sent to Guatamala (for training).

Besdies, ISTR that the use of Federal Troops in Little Rock was
pro-active, to prevent, rather than quell, civil unrest.

Digressing a bit, IWSTM that the use of regular Army troops
in Little Rock violated the Posse-Comitatus (sp?) act, regardless
of who requested them. What did Ike do with the ANG troops?

But I still can't think of anything that ever prohibitted
the Feds from providing disaster relief independently of the
states. That's different from assuming law-enforcement
authority.

Finally and more to the point regardless of past authority the
National Response Plan:

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlib...RPbaseplan.pdf

clearly states that the President may (not must) act
independently of the state government. It should never
be necessary when the state government is not itself
incapacitated. Evidently this time it was necessary.



Ya know, It's kinda funny here that people are debating over whether the
president "could have" legally acted sooner and the debate that his
hands were tied. What this implies is that even those supporting the
president have some feeling that *someone* SHOULD HAVE acted sooner.

Interesting that the President's hands never seem to be tied when the
agenda to be met falls within the administration's plans....A simple
swipe of a pen on a presidental finding magically makes things happen
(from suspeding constitutional rights for suspected terrorists to
sending Nat Guard troops to wherever the whim of the day is).
Interesting also that the same people now arguing that the President's
hands were tied have also argued in the past that the President has the
authority to act unilateraly in times of national emergency.

So...Now that it has become clear that *someone* should have acted
sooner, they're already blaming the locals (rightly) as though that
somehow takes the Feds off the hook...argumentative fallacy. John's bad
behavior does not mitigate Jim's bad behaviors.

What this whole mess really shows is that, after billions have been
spent on "homeland security", no one had the brains to actually spend it
on homeland security response. It all appears to be a sham chasing
potential (often mythical) terrorists hiding under every rock. They put
up pretty curtains in a rotting shack and most Americans spent their
time saying "aren't those curtains pretty..gee I sure feel secure now!"

The real crime and shame here is not whether the Prez acted quickly
enough, had the responsiblity to act faster, isn't to blame, etc. but
that the best we could come up with after the fact (billions spent
already on prepardness for just such a disaster) was STILL a hodgepodge
shotgun approach with a bunch of different agencies not under any
central coordination, all with differing agendas and no clear approach
to the hundreds of little details to be solved. This is where blame
needs to fall squarely on a "goofus" administration. It's just one more
example of the overall bad management and misplaced priorities of the
Bush administration.



Koz

This is what I have learned from recent events.

Don't expect the government to take care of you. They have proven
over and over they can't do it. Social security is a good example.
NO is another good example.

Don't expect the police to protect you. NO is a good example of
why our forefathers created the second admendment. I hope this
will cause some people to see the light.

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
jim rozen wrote:
In article , John R.
Carroll
says...

Jim,
This is what passes for leadership these days. Inearly laughed my ass
off.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0153-3878r.htm

DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat


Heh. Pretty soon he'll be declaring victory - from jail.

They're getting close and closer....

Jim



Dream on! If he's going to jail, I'll be growing a full head of hair
again.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com



LOL

b.w.
(hair impaired/challenged too)

On 14 Sep 2005 20:44:03 GMT, (Chuck
Sherwood) wrote:


This is what I have learned from recent events.

Don't expect the government to take care of you. They have proven
over and over they can't do it. Social security is a good example.
NO is another good example.

Don't expect the police to protect you. NO is a good example of
why our forefathers created the second admendment. I hope this
will cause some people to see the light.


See the light eh? you havn't learned anything !

Besides what makes you think we care what you have learned dimwit.

Regards

Daveb

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:13:38 GMT, DaveB DaveB wrote:
On 14 Sep 2005 20:44:03 GMT, (Chuck
Sherwood) wrote:

Don't expect the police to protect you. NO is a good example of
why our forefathers created the second admendment. I hope this
will cause some people to see the light.

See the light eh? you havn't learned anything !

What do you mean by "you" in this context, DaveB?

Besides what makes you think we care what you have learned dimwit.

Um. One of you aren't making any sense, and I'm pretty sure it's you,
DaveB.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?



Gunner

What do yu think would have happened if he did? Chances are that would have
been the best thing to do with 20/20 hind site.

Right. I can here all the Dems yelling right now about him overstepping his
authority and the plot to overtake the state of Louisiana. The guy cant win
no matter what he does when it comes to the liberals. I am definitely
conservative by nature, and yes, I do think he has made some mistakes as
well. All people do, presidents are not exempt.


"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
.. .

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?



Gunner

What do yu think would have happened if he did? Chances are that would
have been the best thing to do with 20/20 hind site.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:16:38 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?



Gunner

What do yu think would have happened if he did? Chances are that would have
been the best thing to do with 20/20 hind site.

The Left would have nutrolled. Which by itself is not a bad thing,
few of them are armed. But..shrug..we have problems enough with them.
And having to shoot a bunch of them would have depleted our ammo
stocks. Mine anyways.

Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

See the light eh? you havn't learned anything !

I disagree... I learn something everyday...

Besides what makes you think we care what you have learned dimwit.
Daveb

Would you walk up to a person that you have never seen or talked to
before and call them a dimwit? I hope you really a better person
than you come across here (my first impression)
Maybe you will be happy and in a better mood tomorrow?
Have a nice day.

chuck

In article , Chuck Sherwood says...

Would you walk up to a person that you have never seen or talked to
before and call them a dimwit?

Ah, usenet. Allows one to be rude to folks you've never
even *met*.



Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:16:38 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
It was time to invoke the Insurrection Act?



Gunner

What do yu think would have happened if he did? Chances are that would have
been the best thing to do with 20/20 hind site.

The Left would have nutrolled. Which by itself is not a bad thing,
few of them are armed. But..shrug..we have problems enough with them.
And having to shoot a bunch of them would have depleted our ammo
stocks. Mine anyways.


No matter what decision President makes, for action or inaction,
someone will always be opposed.

A good decision is one for which the opposition is wrong.

--

FF

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:29:03 GMT, Gunner wrote:

The Left would have nutrolled. Which by itself is not a bad thing,
few of them are armed. But..shrug..we have problems enough with them.
And having to shoot a bunch of them would have depleted our ammo
stocks. Mine anyways.

Surely you have a better inventory than _that_?

On 15 Sep 2005 17:34:38 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:29:03 GMT, Gunner wrote:

The Left would have nutrolled. Which by itself is not a bad thing,
few of them are armed. But..shrug..we have problems enough with them.
And having to shoot a bunch of them would have depleted our ammo
stocks. Mine anyways.

Surely you have a better inventory than _that_?


There are LOTs of Liberals. I only have so much storage space. Shrug

Ammo takes up room.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner