« Mmm...Capers | Main | Friday Catblogging »
Friday, September 09, 2005
Kyra Phillips: Do-Over!
A gem on CNN today:
[I]n all fairness to the Department of Homeland Security right now, I mean, this is a brand-new department that was formed after 9/11. In many ways this is a learn-by-our-mistakes and figure-out-what-to-do-better type of scenario.
Reminds me of this turd Kyra polished back in '03:
Doctor, does [Ali Hamza, the Iraqi boy who had his arms blown off, was badly burned, and lost most of his family during US bombing] understand why this war took place? Has he talked about Operation Iraqi Freedom and the meaning? Does he understand it?
Sweetie, your talents are wasted at CNN. I'm sure Fox would gobble you up in a heartbeat, if anybody at Fox actually had a heart...
ntodd
September 9, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d8345a262969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kyra Phillips: Do-Over!:
» Kyra Guckert-Phillips from Rogue Planet
Yes, this is a few days late. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 12, 2005 9:33:12 PM
Comments
In all fairness to the DHS, they made a bunch of little bureauocracies into one great big one. Our government now runs like something out of Brazil.
In all fairness to the DHS, it was put together to protect us, not to harm us.
In all fairness to the DHS, they do not have the right not to be prepared.
Can you imagine if this had been a terrorist attack and they had responded like this? Can you imagine the spin about how the DHS is doing the kind of "heck of a good job" that Brownie Brown has done?
Posted by: MercuryX23 | Sep 9, 2005 5:17:52 PM
If this had been a terrorist attack, I doubt Governor Blanco would have refused to allow the feds to take over the evacuation, etc.
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 9, 2005 5:46:51 PM
... I doubt Governor Blanco would have refused to allow the feds to take over the evacuation...Posted by: Charlie
Only a fool would let the incompetent, unethical, immoral Bush regime take control of anything. This is the worst president in American history, who, so far, has cost us one skyscraper complex and one mid-sized city.
New Orleans, RIP
Founded: 1718 by Jean Baptiste Le Moyne, sieur de Bienville
Destroyed: 8/29/2005 by George W. Bush
Laissez les bons temps rouler
Proud vulture of the venomous left
Posted by: Mike | Sep 9, 2005 5:51:42 PM
Luckily for every State, Mike, you are not a Governor.
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 9, 2005 6:08:48 PM
Charlie - proof that Blanco *refused* Federal help. Further, where's the cite that shows it's necessary in such a situation? And are you turning against States' Rights?
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 9, 2005 6:55:42 PM
Sorry - I forgot to cite to this news report: http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/090605/new_blanco001.shtml
"Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans," the Washington Post reported.
You can also read about it here: http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9392.shtml
But, I suspect you already knew about that legal memo seeking to federalize Louisiana law enforcement under the Insurrection Act, which is used to suppress civil disobedience that threatens to turn into anarchy. The act would clarify the chains of command of local, state and federal agencies with the President in charge.
Rather than cede control, Blanco continues on her mad course of self-destruction . . .
[and then, of course, there was this little "gem" as well] U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu threatened to get violent. "If one person criticizes them (local and state government) or says one more thing -- including the president of the United States -- he will hear from me," Landrieu said on the ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "One more word about it after this show airs and I might likely have to punch him. Literally."
As for your question about whether this would have been "necessary" - I can only answer that once the body count is known - if I had to make the decision beforehand, I would have taken the safest course and federalized the National Guard - but I'm not the one criticizing the feds regardless of whether they act or not. And, I am not turning against State's Rights - please re-read the Federalist Papers if you don't think this is EXACTLY where the feds are supposed to be involved.
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 9, 2005 7:26:58 PM
I doubt Governor Blanco would have refused to allow the feds to take over the evacuation, etc.
Charlie, no disrespect but you have your head firmly up your ass. Blanco asked the boy king to declare a state of emergency on August 26 and sent a formal letter August 27. How is that not allowing the feds to take over the evacuation, etc.? By definition, does a national state of emergency not include federal oversight of evacuations, etc.? Also, what does Mary Landrieu threatening "to get violent" have to do with anything? Maybe she should have taken a more conservative approach and told Bush and FEMA to go fuck themselves.
Posted by: queen crab | Sep 9, 2005 9:15:53 PM
The problem, Charlie, is that the attempts to federalize the National Guard by the Bush folks come long after the levees broke, according to the articles you supplied. By then, the local officials would have rightly lost confidence in the ability of Bush's proxy, Mr. Brown, to deal with the disaster.
As for Sen Landrieu, if you cannot understand the level of anger she has at an administration that would put an unqualified hack in charge of one of the most vital arms of our national government, then I would ask you these two simple questions:
Do you think it was appropriate to give tax breaks to the largest earning corporations in history (Exxon-Mobil posts record quarter) or fund a half-billion dollar bridge for fifty people in Alaska while cutting funds to the fortification of the New Orleans levees?
Do you think Michael Brown was the right man for the job?
Why on earth could Landrieu be angry?
Posted by: MercuryX23 | Sep 9, 2005 10:00:52 PM
I do think Mike Brown was the right man for the job - so do some other citizens (another "gem" from CNN):
Do you think Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen will improve Katrina relief efforts?
Yes 60% 6503 votes
No 12% 1249 votes
Maybe 29% 3101 votes
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 10, 2005 1:43:47 AM
I do think Mike Brown was the right man for the job
Only if "job" means putting incompetent lying cronies and other RNC party detritus in a formerly efficient and putatively significant agency.
Posted by: shpx.ohfu | Sep 10, 2005 9:21:02 AM
just attending to charlie's run on bold face...
Posted by: shpx.ohfu | Sep 10, 2005 9:22:12 AM
Why do you allow comments from posters like "Charlie" and "Mike" to remain on display here? It's obvious they are not serious commentors, and are simply trying to provoke the people who are having a real discussion.
Does that serve a purpose for this site? I'm not trying to be dogmatic; the question is really a question.
Posted by: Ralph | Sep 10, 2005 2:29:16 PM
Does that serve a purpose for this site?
NTodd has previously expressed a dedication to free and open discussion, and hence is disinclined to delete comments or ban commenters. This is a laudable philosophy. I would say that it's generally worth the irritation, especially since we're not supposed to "feed the trolls" at so many other sites. Yet it can actually be fun, sometimes.
For example: Charlie, why don't you look up the Stafford Act and get back to us?
See, the Stafford Act, the legislation creating the DHS, and Governor Blanco's granted request for a federal state of emergency have been trotted out ad nauseum, demonstrating that the federal government had complete authority to act, yet Charlie keeps vomiting forth the White House's talking points uncritically. So why mention the Stafford Act again? Because it's morbidly entertaining to watch facts bounce right off. One could also point out the absurdity that an administration which engages in preemptive war under false pretenses, asserts the right to suspend the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens at executive whim, ignores the Geneva Conventions, and believes that the President's powers as commander-in-chief are completely unlimited, had to defer to states' rights and the proper filling out of forms before it could act. That wouldn't do any good either, but at least writing out the list again was somehow cathartic.
Posted by: mds | Sep 11, 2005 12:27:15 AM
What is with her????
Posted by: scout prime | Sep 11, 2005 1:50:14 AM
Buy me stuff off my 
