Non-partisan Congressional Report clears Blanco of right-wing charges

[Matty]

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democ...arept91205.pdf

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democ...ortpr91305.pdf

[ QUOTE ]
- "This report closes the book on the Bush Administration's attempts to evade accountability by shifting the blame to the Governor of Louisiana for the Administration's tragically sluggish response to Katrina. It confirms that the Governor did everything she could to secure relief for the people of Louisiana and the Bush Administration was caught napping at a critical time."

In addition to finding that "...it would appear that the Governor did take the steps necessary to request emergency and major disaster declarations for the State of Louisiana in anticipation of Hurricane Katrina. (p.11)" The report found that:

- All necessary conditions for federal relief were met on August 28. Pursuant to Section 502 of the Stafford Act, "[t]he declaration of an emergency by the President makes Federal emergency assistance available," and the President made such a declaration on August 28. The public record indicates that several additional days passed before such assistance was actually made available to the State;

- The Governor must make a timely request for such assistance, which meets the requirements of federal law. The report states that "[e]xcept to the extent that an emergency involves primarily Federal interests, both declarations of major disaster and declarations of emergency must be triggered by a request to the President from the Governor of the affected state";

- The Governor did indeed make such a request, which was both timely and in compliance with federal law. The report finds that "Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco requested by letter dated August 27, 2005...that the President declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period from August 26, 2005 and continuing pursuant to [applicable Federal statute]" and "Governor Blanco's August 27, 2005 request for an emergency declaration also included her determination...that `the 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 disaster."

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dynasty]

A non-partisan committee has already been formed, investigated the issue, and written a report?

Damn! Washington is working better than we could ever dream. When did this happen?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
A non-partisan committee has already been formed, investigated the issue, and written a report?

Damn! Washington is working better than we could ever dream. When did this happen?

[/ QUOTE ]Do you seriously believe it is that difficult to determine whether this particular claim against Blanco was true or not?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
A non-partisan committee has already been formed, investigated the issue, and written a report?

Damn! Washington is working better than we could ever dream. When did this happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Democrats don't want a bi-partisan committee to investigate (because they know the truth will come out).

The report Grey mentions was requested by conspiracy buff Conyers, using House staff in the CRS, which is called non-partisan because they can produce reports on any side of an issue (remember, the house is full of both liberal and conservative staffers). Non-partisan in this case, does not mean neutral or objective, it merely means not officially connected to any party.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
A non-partisan committee has already been formed, investigated the issue, and written a report?

Damn! Washington is working better than we could ever dream. When did this happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

A commission wasn't formed - it already existed. The report was by the Congressional Research Service which acts as a part of the legislative branch. It isn't like some new commission was thrown together; the CRS has been doing this type of work for about 90 years, and since they are paid by the Government (correction: THIS government), I think any notion that they are biased towards democrats is patently absurd.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A non-partisan committee has already been formed, investigated the issue, and written a report?

Damn! Washington is working better than we could ever dream. When did this happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Democrats don't want a bi-partisan committee to investigate (because they know the truth will come out).

The report Grey mentions was requested by conspiracy buff Conyers, using House staff in the CRS, which is called non-partisan because they can produce reports on any side of an issue (remember, the house is full of both liberal and conservative staffers). Non-partisan in this case, does not mean neutral or objective, it merely means not officially connected to any party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, so they can produce any report that they are asked to produce? Jeez, Tom DeLay shoulda asked for his own nifty report that completely absolved this administration and placed all blame on Blanco and Nagin. He really blew that one, huh? Your argument doesn't hold water.

[phlup]

I have a question for you. Did you actually read the report or did you just immediately assume it was crap because a democrat asked for it? I'm assuming you just automatically discredit anything a democrat says or does as a liberal lie.

I'll help you here. The things in this report are FACTS. I know it's hard to understand, but FACTS are neither liberal nor conservative. Just because the person telling you the facts is of one party or the other doesn't matter. The report in question gathered the facts about when the governor of Louisiana asked Bush to declare a federal emergency. They did this and they show that she asked for aid in a timely manner.

What exactly about that is partisan?

Furthermore, please provide evidence of this:

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats don't want a bi-partisan committee to investigate (because they know the truth will come out).

[/ QUOTE ]

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
and since they are paid by the Government (correction: THIS government), I think any notion that they are biased towards democrats is patently absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you know absolutely NOTHING about the way Washington works.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
and since they are paid by the Government (correction: THIS government), I think any notion that they are biased towards democrats is patently absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow. I guess you don't realize that every US Senator and House member (and their staffs) are paid by the government.

I guess every Senator must be unbiased because they are paid by the government.


Wait! George Bush is paid a salary by the government, he must be impartial in all things.

So we finally got you to concede that Bush is absolutely impartial and unbiased. Welcome aboard Roybert. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Roybert]

Ok, I will ask the question for the third time:

If the Congressional Research Service exists solely to produce biased reports for any congressman who asks for them, and these reports influence public perception (after all, we are talking about one such report here and now), why then doesn't Tom DeLay or some other dittohead congressman get the CRS to produce a report that absolves the Bush Administration of any responsibility in the Katrina disaster?

Oh, I know - DeLay is CLEARLY too ethical to pass off information that he knows to be biased or untruthful, and he certainly wouldn't dare play politics with such 'lies'.

Your premise that the report is flawed simply because John Conyers asked for it is simply retarded. You know nothing about the Congressional Research Service. Please admit that now.