Get off his Back

[shotdrops286]

Artcile by Ben Stein

Get Off His Back (Updated)
By Ben Stein
Published 9/2/2005 11:59:59 PM

***UPDATED: Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005, 2:13 p.m.***

A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:

1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.

2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.

3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.

4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.

5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.

6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.

10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.

11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.

12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush.

[Mr. Glass]

Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recently posed the following questions to the Senate Committee on Government Oversight.

The points in Reid's letter to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Joe Liberman (D-CT) follow. Pens Reid, "I believe your Committee would do the Senate and the country an important service if it could explore the following issues that have been raised by many objective analysts."

1. Administration inaction to warnings of catastrophic flooding in New Orleans. President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and other top Administration officials have repeatedly stated that no one “anticipated the breach of the levees.” Yet, public studies and analyses made available to the Administration have long warned that a major storm was inevitable and would lead to the breeching of New Orleans’ levees with catastrophic results. Why, then, was the Administration so unprepared to deal with the breaching of the levees?

2. Administration insistence on harmful budget cuts. In the face of these warnings about the risks involved of a catastrophic hurricane, why did the Administration reject urgent and repeated requests from local and state officials and the Army Corps of Engineers for programs that could have helped prevent or alleviate this disaster? What specific impact did budget cuts for programs such as levee repairs/maintenance, emergency planning grants, wetlands restoration, and other related items have on the damage caused by Katrina?

3. Slow Administration response to Hurricane Katrina warnings. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, has stated that both DHS Secretary Chertoff and FEMA Director Brown listened to NHC briefings days before Katrina’s landfall that discussed the strength of the storm and its potential impact. Given these warnings, why did FEMA and DHS fail to adequately prepare for the consequences? Who else received these briefings? Did Secretary Chertoff or Director Brown communicate these warnings to President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Leavitt, Mineta or other key Cabinet officials? If so, what specific actions did each cabinet official take?

4 FEMA rejection of assistance. Is it true that FEMA turned away offers of assistance from states, nonprofit agencies, and the private sector – including offers for generators, water, fuel, food aid, transportation, and fire control? If so, why?

5. Absence from Washington of the President and key officials. How much time did the President spend dealing with this emerging crisis while he was on vacation? Did the fact that he was outside of Washington, D.C. have any effect on the federal government’s response? When it became apparent a major hurricane was days away from striking the Gulf Coast, why didn’t President Bush immediately return to Washington from his vacation and why didn’t he recall key officials and staff members back from their vacations? Would the presence of key officials in Washington have improved the response?

6. Failure to implement National Response Plan. The Bush Administration published a National Response Plan for responding to catastrophic incidents, including natural disasters, in December 2004. The plan explicitly states that the federal government can override notification and request for assistance regulations in order to expedite assistance, and that “the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources.” Why did the Bush Administration fail to act according to the National Response Plan?

7. Failure to cut through red tape. Numerous reports indicate that bureaucratic red tape impeded the rapid delivery of assistance for critical needs, such as shelter, transportation, and food. Did Administration officials have the authority to cut through this red tape and, if so, why didn’t they exercise this authority?

8. Failure to send sufficient number of troops immediately. Why did it take several days for National Guard and active military units to reach positions in New Orleans and around the Gulf Coast? Why did the Secretary of Defense wait until Saturday – five days after the hurricane struck – to deploy soldiers from the nearest Army base, Fort Polk, LA? What effect have extended overseas deployments of National Guard and Reserve forces had on these forces’ abilities to respond to emergencies on U.S. soil?

9. Lack of interoperable communications. The Wall Street Journal reports that the response effort has been plagued by “a total breakdown of communications systems, an echo of the problems that faced New York officials dealing with the 2001 terrorist attacks and a system the government has been trying to fix for four years,” specifically citing “incompatible radio systems.” Why has the Administration failed to solve this problem? Would the adoption of congressional amendments to increase funds for this equipment helped to mitigate this problem?

10. Failure to respond to state and local officials. State and local officials indicate that they were asking for immediate and massive federal assistance from the outset, but that the federal government failed to mobilize for several days, dragging its feet and failing to appreciate the impact of the storm. Did this Administration work as closely in this case with state and local officials as did previous Administrations or during previous disasters?

11. Administration efforts to shift blame from its own failures. Shortly after it became apparent that the government’s response was grossly inadequate, comments attributed to unidentified Administration officials suggested that the primary blame for the chaotic response rested with state and local officials. Is there any evidence that Administration officials decided to intentionally mislead the public?

12. Effects of organizational changes at FEMA. It appears that FEMA suffered from serious systemic failures in virtually every aspect of it response to Katrina. Did these failures stem directly from the decision to strip FEMA of its cabinet level status and include it in a department where countering terrorist attacks is the primary focus? There have also been reports that many of FEMA’s most experienced and capable personnel have left the agency recently. It is essential that your committee speak with current and former FEMA officials, especially those who have worked at the agency before and since the transition.

13. Preparation for future disasters. What do experts predict about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and other natural disasters striking the U.S. in the immediate future? What actions should the Administration and Congress take immediately to address the lessons you draw from the U.S. government’s response to Hurricane Katrina so that we will be better able to respond to future emergencies including major terrorist attacks?

[Wadi66]

Glass, what is your point? Okay, a democrat is asking these questions and in typical fashion taking the tact that Uncle Sam is in charge of and responsible for everything that happens in the USA. And liberals accuse conservatives of being facists? This is a Republic. There is a reason each state has a governor, a legislature and a judicial branch. Every state is an independent entity. If liberals are so hell bent of giving the feds jurisdiction over everything, why don't we just erase the borders?

[FKLBRLS]

Okay, a democrat is asking these questions and in typical fashion taking the tact that Uncle Sam is in charge of and responsible for everything that happens in the USA. And liberals accuse conservatives of being facists? This is a Republic. There is a reason each state has a governor, a legislature and a judicial branch.
True, Wadi.
Since liberals believe that the federal government should control everything, they get all upset when it leaves the authority to the states. Both New Orleans and Louisiana both had the knowledge and the ability to evacuate everyone before the hurricane struck, but they didn't. Instead, they decided to throw everyone in the superdome and everything will be all hunky-dory. In truth, the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans both underestimated the strength of the approaching hurricane. The federal government didn't act "immediately" because they thought New Orleans was going to do what they were supposed to do and handle the evacuation of its citizens. When it became clear that Louisiana expected the federal government to bail them out, against procedure, the the feds stepped in.

Of course, another problem here is how this isn't Bush's fault. Now I know it wasn't Bush's fault and you know it wasn't Bush's fault. But according to liberals, everything is a Republican president's fault (and when a Democrat president is in office, everything is the evil conspiracy's fault). If any liberal were confronted by Ben Stein and the like who gave many reasons why this isn't George Bush's fault, they would say, "A seven-year-old could get away with this, but not a president (actually they mean to say a Republican president, as a Democrat president is always blameless)." These people have no reasoning.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

1. Administration inaction to warnings of catastrophic flooding in New Orleans. President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and other top Administration officials have repeatedly stated that no one “anticipated the breach of the levees.” Yet, public studies and analyses made available to the Administration have long warned that a major storm was inevitable and would lead to the breeching of New Orleans’ levees with catastrophic results. Why, then, was the Administration so unprepared to deal with the breaching of the levees?

THe Army Corps of Engineers has been on the Governments ass about upgrading the levee's for over TEN YEARS....... Funding for the levee's was terminated TEN YEARS AGO.

So what's the point, if the Absolut Moron, Dingy Harry, is trying to run down the admin, he'd better clean out his party's closet before hand. He's off to a bad start.

Notice how he refers to "THE Adminstration", if that isn't singling out the Bush Admin, nothing is.



Administration insistence on harmful budget cuts. In the face of these warnings about the risks involved of a catastrophic hurricane, why did the Administration reject urgent and repeated requests from local and state officials and the Army Corps of Engineers for programs that could have helped prevent or alleviate this disaster? What specific impact did budget cuts for programs such as levee repairs/maintenance, emergency planning grants, wetlands restoration, and other related items have on the damage caused by Katrina?

See the above.

In addition, why is Reid not mentioning that funding for these levees was cut in NINETEEN NINETY FIVE? (Gee I wonder who was in power then?????)



3. Slow Administration response to Hurricane Katrina warnings. Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, has stated that both DHS Secretary Chertoff and FEMA Director Brown listened to NHC briefings days before Katrina’s landfall that discussed the strength of the storm and its potential impact. Given these warnings, why did FEMA and DHS fail to adequately prepare for the consequences? Who else received these briefings? Did Secretary Chertoff or Director Brown communicate these warnings to President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Leavitt, Mineta or other key Cabinet officials? If so, what specific actions did each cabinet official take?

Glass, you get to play Dingy Harry here.

What should Fema have done, considering that there was 150 mph winds on the day that Katrina hit, the day after that, the water level was TEN FEET DEEP.

What exactly should FEMA have done?



4. FEMA rejection of assistance. Is it true that FEMA turned away offers of assistance from states, nonprofit agencies, and the private sector – including offers for generators, water, fuel, food aid, transportation, and fire control? If so, why?

Better yet, why did LA's Govenor turn down Federal assistance. Yesterday infact, Blano told Bush that she needed 24 hours to decide if she wanted help???



5. Absence from Washington of the President and key officials. How much time did the President spend dealing with this emerging crisis while he was on vacation? Did the fact that he was outside of Washington, D.C. have any effect on the federal government’s response? When it became apparent a major hurricane was days away from striking the Gulf Coast, why didn’t President Bush immediately return to Washington from his vacation and why didn’t he recall key officials and staff members back from their vacations? Would the presence of key officials in Washington have improved the response?

WHAT????? What the hell has that got to do with anything? At best Bush was closer to the activity than he would have been had he been at the White House.

Reid is fishing here, he has nothing to go on, so he's fishing....



6. Failure to implement National Response Plan. The Bush Administration published a National Response Plan for responding to catastrophic incidents, including natural disasters, in December 2004. The plan explicitly states that the federal government can override notification and request for assistance regulations in order to expedite assistance, and that “the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources.” Why did the Bush Administration fail to act according to the National Response Plan?


Yah, I can see the headline's now,

WE LIVE IN A FACIST STATE.
Yesterday, President Bush decalred Marshall Law in LA, and appointed a Military Govenor, ousting current Govenor Blanco.

We have turned the corner Ladies and Gents, we now live in a facist state.

Glass, if you cannot see the stupidity in this question, then I have to say you have lost touch with reality.

It is the State's responsibilty to call out the Guard, Not the Feds.
It is the State's responsibility to act to defend the state, Not the Feds.

In order for the Fed to call out the guard, a state of FEDERAL MARTIAL LAW has to be declared, and the current Govenor has to be replaced with a Military Govenor.

Now, what do you think would be the response if GW, replaced Blanco with a Military Govenor, Called out the Guard and forced people out of their houses?????

And that's just the National Guard.

You left wing crackheads bitch already about Federal interference in State's affairs....This question is as ridiculous as the pinhead that's asking it.


7. Failure to cut through red tape. Numerous reports indicate that bureaucratic red tape impeded the rapid delivery of assistance for critical needs, such as shelter, transportation, and food. Did Administration officials have the authority to cut through this red tape and, if so, why didn’t they exercise this authority?

The Administration has a hard enough time getting an up or down vote on a Judge. What the hell do you think would happen if Bush overrode Blanco and installed a military govenor?

Reid would be calling for Bush's impeachment......AGAIN.


8. Failure to send sufficient number of troops immediately. Why did it take several days for National Guard and active military units to reach positions in New Orleans and around the Gulf Coast? Why did the Secretary of Defense wait until Saturday – five days after the hurricane struck – to deploy soldiers from the nearest Army base, Fort Polk, LA? What effect have extended overseas deployments of National Guard and Reserve forces had on these forces’ abilities to respond to emergencies on U.S. soil?

THE CITY WAS UNDERWATER???? WHAT THE HELL DID HE WANT THE TROOPS TO DO???? WEAR WATER WINGS??????

God, these libs are STUPID.

Oh, Glass. Seeing as how the coast guard isn't part of the military, who were the guys in the olive drab Blackhawks lifting people off the roofs the day after?? ALIENS???


9. Lack of interoperable communications. The Wall Street Journal reports that the response effort has been plagued by “a total breakdown of communications systems, an echo of the problems that faced New York officials dealing with the 2001 terrorist attacks and a system the government has been trying to fix for four years,” specifically citing “incompatible radio systems.” Why has the Administration failed to solve this problem? Would the adoption of congressional amendments to increase funds for this equipment helped to mitigate this problem?

The WALL STREET JOURNAL????????? This man, a senator of the US, with all the resources available to him, and he sources THE WALL STREET JOURNAL?????

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH A


10. Failure to respond to state and local officials. State and local officials indicate that they were asking for immediate and massive federal assistance from the outset, but that the federal government failed to mobilize for several days, dragging its feet and failing to appreciate the impact of the storm. Did this Administration work as closely in this case with state and local officials as did previous Administrations or during previous disasters?

This is redundant, see the answer at Question 4


11. Administration efforts to shift blame from its own failures. Shortly after it became apparent that the government’s response was grossly inadequate, comments attributed to unidentified Administration officials suggested that the primary blame for the chaotic response rested with state and local officials. Is there any evidence that Administration officials decided to intentionally mislead the public?

See the entire post of Wadi's entitled "GET OFF HIS BACK".


12. Effects of organizational changes at FEMA. It appears that FEMA suffered from serious systemic failures in virtually every aspect of it response to Katrina. Did these failures stem directly from the decision to strip FEMA of its cabinet level status and include it in a department where countering terrorist attacks is the primary focus? There have also been reports that many of FEMA’s most experienced and capable personnel have left the agency recently. It is essential that your committee speak with current and former FEMA officials, especially those who have worked at the agency before and since the transition.

Hmmm let's see, the threat of biochem weapons is more real than a Cat 5 Hurricane, and Reid is bemoaning the shift to an anti terror focus....

That's really bright.



13. Preparation for future disasters. What do experts predict about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and other natural disasters striking the U.S. in the immediate future? What actions should the Administration and Congress take immediately to address the lessons you draw from the U.S. government’s response to Hurricane Katrina so that we will be better able to respond to future emergencies including major terrorist attacks?

As if Reid really gives a shit what Bush thinks.....


This is really miserable, it appears the libs, having figured that the majority of this country don't want to be associated with them, figure the only way to get back power is to embaress this country into submission.

Hell, it worked for them in Vietnam, they're trying it again with Iraq, now they're gonna try it with Katrina too.

Miserbale excuses for humans they are.

[Android]

THe Army Corps of Engineers has been on the Governments ass about upgrading the levee's for over TEN YEARS....... Funding for the levee's was terminated TEN YEARS AGO.


Well, I'm not sure if Glass was going anywhere with this other than just posting what he had found and wanting to share it, I don't know. But I will add one thing I have heard of and read about recently. If necessary, I'll try to find and post. But the Army Corps of Engineers has been SCREAMING about those dikes and levees as far back as the 60's folks. Nothing new. They were inadequate then and inadequate last week. If we want to go off blaming someone for all of this, then we should go back and hang each and every local official who decided to ignore the EXPERTS warnings and who spent their money on other items instead of something critical to their citizens safety.
I'm so confused, how is something that existed in other persons hands suddenly G.W.'s fault? Or any other president for that matter. How about less food stamps and hand outs and more steel and concrete. Of coarse its easier to blame someone instead of dusting yourself off and fixing the problem.
A good point you made which I believe is critical, Local authorities wanted more time before asking the Feds for their assistance. Interesting. I can understand why they would wait, cant tell whats going on until the storm passes but to then turn around and cry that its someone else's fault? :icon_conf pathetic.

[FKLBRLS]

But the Army Corps of Engineers has been SCREAMING about those dikes and levees as far back as the 60's folks. Nothing new. They were inadequate then and inadequate last week. If we want to go off blaming someone for all of this, then we should go back and hang each and every local official who decided to ignore the EXPERTS warnings and who spent their money on other items instead of something critical to their citizens safety.
This is an outrageous lie! This was fabricated by the Bush administration, who didn't want to fix the levees because his desire for oil is greater than the desire to protect the nation! (sarcasm, obviously)

THe Army Corps of Engineers has been on the Governments ass about upgrading the levee's for over TEN YEARS....... Funding for the levee's was terminated TEN YEARS AGO.
BWAAA! That's another outrageous lie fabricated by the Bush administration so that he can steal oil. It is so sad, the many Americans who have been hoodwinked by this facist tyrant. (sarcasm)

I'm so confused, how is something that existed in other persons hands suddenly G.W.'s fault?
It isn't, we all know it isn't, but if I were a liberal, this would be my answer: "Well that facist, racist tyrant George W. Bush is the source of all evil. He created poverty and wants to kill off everyone else so he can get his oil. He is a threat to a free thinking society and is much, much worse than Hitler. George W. Bush's policies have threatened world security and have created a phenomenon of anger. He is out of touch with the average American, who he has been plotting to kill, along with the Saudis."

Makes no sense at all, does it?

Actually, I just came up with an answer to your question Android. Back when the Bill Clinton was president, as you may know, he was accused of, and proven to have committed, but still not convicted for, several crimes including rape and sexual harassment. Each time Bill did something bad and was charged with it, the liberals portrayed it as being "not so bad." An example would be when Bill was caught commiting sexual harassment, but then the liberals went out and said it wasn't such a big deal, this happens all the time. So, after he sexually harassed and/or raped several women, his actions were downplayed as being "not so bad". So naturally, when Bill terminated funding for the levees, his action was viewed as "not so bad". But then Bush steps in, and when the levees do prove inadequate, the liberals have a field day, for now they have someone that they can pin all the blame on for the actions of Bill Clinton. The mentality would be like, well, it couldn't have been Clinton's fault, he "never" does anything wrong, so Bush is president now, it must be his fault.