Mike Brown removed of authority for FEMA effort in New Orleans

Good for the administration. A little late. But good for the president. This gentleman was in over his head, and the primary responsibility needs to be the recovery and not political loyalties.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/09/katrina.washington/index.html)

(Edited to include link)

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Good for the administration. A little late. But good for the president.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you are not of the opinion that those that employed him in this position should be held accountable for their decisions?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good for the administration. A little late. But good for the president.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you are not of the opinion that those that employed him in this position should be held accountable for their decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you want to do, impeach the President for making a poor choice of political appointees?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good for the administration. A little late. But good for the president.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you are not of the opinion that those that employed him in this position should be held accountable for their decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you want to do, impeach the President for making a poor choice of political appointees?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently it makes more sense than impeaching someone for committing a "high crime or misdemeanor" like Clinton DID.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently it makes more sense than impeaching someone for committing a "high crime or misdemeanor" like Clinton DID.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please define "high crime or misdemeanor"?

[Abednego]

Like not get re-elected?

[superleeds]

No. I would impeach him for embarking on a war under false pretenses. That would have better legs.

The point I'm making is that when someone is removed from office because he was not upto the job, a closer look at his employer's judgements are in order rather than a pat on the back.

[Abednego]

Let me take a shot at this one ...... uh lying under oath?

[Abednego]

oh ... well ..... good luck on that

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
No. I would impeach him for embarking on a war under false pretenses. That would have better legs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubtful, esp. given the fact he had legistative approval.

[ QUOTE ]
The point I'm making is that when someone is removed from office because he was not upto the job, a closer look at his employer's judgements are in order rather than a pat on the back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. My question is what comes after the closer look?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good for the administration. A little late. But good for the president.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you are not of the opinion that those that employed him in this position should be held accountable for their decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing has nothing to do with another. Yes I do think that those that employed him should be held accountable for putting an unqualified person in this position. But that does not mean that the move to remove him from the relief/recovery effort does not deserve credit. This administration receives a lot of criticism (and in some cases rightly so) for political/crony hirings and loyalty. The administration deserves credit for recognizing (albeit a little late, in my opinion) that the relief/recovery effort far outweighs any political loyalty the president may feel he owes to Mr. Brown.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me take a shot at this one ...... uh lying under oath?

[/ QUOTE ]

Me: Define 'Vegetables'
You: Spinach

Uh ... So the DEFINITION of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' is "lying under oath"? That isn't a definition. That happens to be an example of something YOU THINK is an HCOM.

My point is this; There IS no definition in the Constitution for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Jaxmike's assertion was clearly his (and a minority of the 1999 Senate's) opinion.

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
Good for the administration. A little late. But good for the president. This gentleman was in over his head, and the primary responsibility needs to be the recovery and not political loyalties.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/09/katrina.washington/index.html)

(Edited to include link)

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad the damage had been done and we lost a lot of lives that could have been saved due to incompetent planning and failure to act by the Feds and other governments.

I think we can finally put to bed the FEMA/DHS did all they could arguments.

Who hired this Brown idiot anyways ? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Doubtful, esp. given the fact he had legistative approval.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think he told the truth to obtain that approval?

[ QUOTE ]
Fine. My question is what comes after the closer look?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some backbone from Congress, the Senate and the Press I would hope.

[Broken Glass Can]

I'm fine with this. We don't need a lightning rod of criticism. Now if we can get rid of some of the people who failed to do right by the hurricane victims (like Blanco and Nagin), I think real progress to resolving all outstanding management issues will be done.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Jaxmike's assertion was clearly his (and a minority of the 1999 Senate's) opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how you fail to mention that a majority of the House believed him guilty. Selective use of information to suit your position?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

Who hired this Brown idiot anyways ? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Brown was hired by the then head of FEMA, Joe Allbaugh. He replaced Allbaugh when he left. According to Time:

[ QUOTE ]
When President Bush nominated Michael Brown to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2003, Brown's boss at the time, Joe Allbaugh, declared, "the President couldn't have chosen a better man to help...prepare and protect the nation."

[/ QUOTE ]

Brown was obviously well qualified. Regarding his previous experience in emergency management:

[ QUOTE ]
Before joining FEMA, his only previous stint in emergency management, according to his bio posted on FEMA's website, was "serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight." The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him." Brown did do a good job at his humble position, however, according to his boss. "Yes. Mike Brown worked for me. He was my administrative assistant. He was a student at Central State University," recalls former city manager Bill Dashner. "Mike used to handle a lot of details. Every now and again I'd ask him to write me a speech. He was very loyal. He was always on time. He always had on a suit and a starched white shirt."

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like perfect qualifications to me. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[cadillac1234]

Opinion polls released and the Feds response hit the magic 70% disapproval rating with the public. This always results in an automatic 180 degree turn by the White House.

See Social Security reform, Mandatory Small Pox vaccinantions as other examples of this Admin's reluctance to pull a 70% disapproval rating

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jaxmike's assertion was clearly his (and a minority of the 1999 Senate's) opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how you fail to mention that a majority of the House believed him guilty. Selective use of information to suit your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the judges (i.e. Arbiters of guilt/innocence) WERE THE SENATORS suits my position. My use of the Senate vote was used to show that Clinton was (for lack of better term) not guilty of committing High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

If someone is accused of a crime but then acquitted, is it wrong to refer to that person as 'not guilty' because it ignores the position of the D.A. who brought the charges? The Houses opinion wasn't mentioned because it was dismissed by those who judged the case, not to 'suit my position'.

That's all well and good, but it ignores my main point. Jaxmike and Abenago threw the term around as though they had a clue what it meant, and the only people who do know what it means are the Senators who preside over an impeachment proceeding. This, again, is due to the fact that the term is not defined in the Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fine with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, nobody cares. Don't you have to take care of posting whether Crayola is racist because it includes a black crayon in its box?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm fine with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, nobody cares. Don't you have to take care of posting whether Crayola is racist because it includes a black crayon in its box?

[/ QUOTE ]

No need, you just asked the question. I guess we should report you for doing it too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Jaxmike's assertion was clearly his (and a minority of the 1999 Senate's) opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was more referring to the fact that he got disbarred for committing perjury.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think he told the truth to obtain that approval?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the Congresspeople are stupid enough to believe a lie when they see basically the same intelligence that the President does, thus they are able to check what he is saying? The war is NOT on his shoulders, the Congress voted FOR it. It's all of their doing, rightfully so I might add.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The war is NOT on his shoulders, the Congress voted FOR it. It's all their doing, rightfully so I might add.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't totally correct. Bush wanted the war. Congress gave it to him. Both are responsible.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war is NOT on his shoulders, the Congress voted FOR it. It's all their doing, rightfully so I might add.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't totally correct. Bush wanted the war. Congress gave it to him. Both are responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I left out the word of. I meant to put the blame on both. It should have read..

its all of their doing

And even then it doesn't read as well as I could make it, but I don't really care. I'm sleepy and ready for happy hour.

[John Ho]

As usual you are incorrect here. The House does not vote on guilt or innocence. They are like a grand jury. An indictment does not equate to a stamp of guilt or innocence.

Clinton certainly had his faults and lying under oath is a serious crime. But getting some oral service from a young woman didn't kill anyone. Bush has sent us to a ridiculous war which was poorly planned. And now here we have the hurrican response. The man is a stupid, lazy, incompetent boob who hires people based on loyalty rather than competence.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jaxmike's assertion was clearly his (and a minority of the 1999 Senate's) opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how you fail to mention that a majority of the House believed him guilty. Selective use of information to suit your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton certainly had his faults and lying under oath is a serious crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it so hard for Clinton supporters to say the word perjury? It's always lying under oath. Maybe because that sounds less CRIMINAL than perjury.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Congresspeople are stupid enough to believe a lie when they see basically the same intelligence that the President does, thus they are able to check what he is saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say so. I think your wrong tho.

[ QUOTE ]
The war is NOT on his shoulders

[/ QUOTE ]

He is the president, right? He asked to go to war, right?

[ QUOTE ]
the Congress voted FOR it. It's all of their doing, rightfully so I might add.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this dilutes Bush's responsibility how?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But getting some oral service from a young woman didn't kill anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Almost everyone I've met that felt Clinton deserved to be impeached did so because he committed perjury, not that he got a hummer. But that hasn't stopped leftists from using the same old strawman you've brought up.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Congresspeople are stupid enough to believe a lie when they see basically the same intelligence that the President does, thus they are able to check what he is saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say so. I think your wrong tho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong about what exactly?

I asked a question.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war is NOT on his shoulders

[/ QUOTE ]

He is the president, right? He asked to go to war, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. However, to try to blame one man for anything this complicated is oversimplistic and ignorant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the Congress voted FOR it. It's all of their doing, rightfully so I might add.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this dilutes Bush's responsibility how?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush's responsibility is the same as it always was. However, the fact that he DIDN'T do it alone. He had the support of Congress. This includes Kerry, Kennedy (I believe), and Clinton. The fact is that THEY wanted the war as well, hell, they VOTED FOR IT.

The problem is that you (proverbial) are trying to put ALL the blame on one person who CANNOT be totally responsible for what he is being blamed for.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
...who hires people based on loyalty rather than competence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to Washington. Appointments like this rarely go to people based on "competence". Its a patronage system that has been alive and well since the early days of this country. I am not saying it is right or a good way of doing things, but dont be so specious as to pretend it is a practice that is unique to President Bush.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...who hires people based on loyalty rather than competence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to Washington. Appointments like this rarely go to people based on "competence". Its a patronage system that has been alive and well since the early days of this country. I am not saying it is right or a good way of doing things, but dont be so specious as to pretend it is a practice that is unique to President Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto. It is obvious to anyone familiar with big government or big business that the NO post-disaster disaster was largely a system failure at all levels. We are seeing the results of a huge inefficient bureaucracy led by political appointees of questionable competence. Neither party has any room to boast about the excellence of its appointees.

Bush's role and blame here is open to question (and historical judgement). His style is to delegate, and the people he delegated to couldn't handle the job. The results would have been no better if he had micro-managed it, because he doesn't have the expertise either.

The results would have been no better with a micromanager like Gore or Kerry in the White House, for the same reasons. I think that the major sacrificial calf in this ritual is going to be (deservedly) the mayor of New Orleans for an apparent total lack of proactive effort to evacuate the poor. (I still vividly remember hearing that those left in NO were told to get to the Superdome and to bring 5 days worth of food and water.) But there will be plenty of blame to go around.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong about what exactly?

I asked a question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were being rhetorical. Maybe if you had worded it more like

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Congresspeople are stupid enough to believe a lie when they see basically the same intelligence that the President does? Are they not then able to check what he is saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

i would have given you these answers, no, I do not believe congress as a whole see basically the same intelligence on a day to day basis as the president and his advisors do. And no, I further do not believe congress were given reasonable time or resources to validate what they were being told. I further charge that they were browbeaten into making a hasty decision to go along with a plan that had been conceived by key members of the Bush administration many months if not years before.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. However, to try to blame one man for anything this complicated is oversimplistic and ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ultimately its his decision (ha, ha). I know he is not the only one culpable but that in no way reduces his responsibility which is what you are trying to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's responsibility is the same as it always was. However, the fact that he DIDN'T do it alone. He had the support of Congress. This includes Kerry, Kennedy (I believe), and Clinton. The fact is that THEY wanted the war as well, hell, they VOTED FOR IT.

The problem is that you (proverbial) are trying to put ALL the blame on one person who CANNOT be totally responsible for what he is being blamed for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I (proverbial or not) am not trying to put the blame on one person. I just want our leaders to be held accountable for their actions and not be subject to toned down criticism because some other jackass did this, that or the other.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clinton certainly had his faults and lying under oath is a serious crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it so hard for Clinton supporters to say the word perjury? It's always lying under oath. Maybe because that sounds less CRIMINAL than perjury.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton CLEARLY lied to Congress, and therefore he did commit perjury. It has been proven that he perjured himself when speaking about his sex life.

On the other hand, the Downing Street Minutes prove that Bush lied to Congress about the reasons for taking this country to war.

If you'd like to make the case that Clinton should've been evicted from office for lying to Congress about a BJ, I can't really argue with you. I disagree, but I absolutely see your point. In my opinion, no one should be forced to testify about their sex life, but I understand those that say the President should.

Your contention that one man lying to Congress about his sex life is a "High Crime and Misdemeanor" whereas another lying to Congress about the justifications for warfare isn't is punditry of the first order.

[Ray Zee]

as in the real business world or the political one people that drop the ball or are incapable of handeling their position need to be fired.
this guy needed the axe. but was fired for politcial reasons to help some other fool higher up save some face.

[kurto]

It's SOOOO confusing.

[ QUOTE ]
“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” I see a Medal of Honor in Mike Brown’s future... GEORGE BUSH


[/ QUOTE ]

So... he deserves a medal and he's being replaced? That Bush is so confusing.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Congresspeople are stupid enough to believe a lie when they see basically the same intelligence that the President does, thus they are able to check what he is saying? The war is NOT on his shoulders, the Congress voted FOR it. It's all of their doing, rightfully so I might add.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, if that didn't give me a good laugh.

[kurto]

You mean the fool whose first response was to say he sees a medal in his future?

If this was in a movie, it would be funny.

[CORed]

I'm pretty sure that Clinton also lied under oath in a depostion in the Paula Jones civil suit, which was clearly perjury. I don't think anything Bush said to Congress about Iraq was under oath, so it's not perjury. Also, I think it's debatable whether statements about WMD in Iraq by Bush and others in his administration prior to the war in Iraq were lies or errors.

[Roybert]

I understand your point, but I don't think that it is debatable that the Bush administration "fixed the intelligence around the policy". Ignoring that point, are you saying that Clinton's lies were more severe simply because he was under oath in a civil court?

Bush may not have been 'under oath' in the traditional sense, but I consider the State of the Union address to hold a higher standard of our citizens than any civil court.

[Edit] This side bar began when Jaxmike claimed that Clinton committed a "high crime and misdemeanor" by committing perjury. High crimes and misdemeanors are not strictly defined in the constitution, so no one knows exactly what one is.

I will not argue that Clinton didn't perjure himself; he did. I am looking for an explanation as to why lying in a civil matter, or lying to congress about a BJ is an HCAM, but lying to Congress in order to get authorization for a war isn't.