I thought he made a mistake when he took responsibility.

It reminded me of when I was in second grade. The teacher told us not to talk. When she came back, much noise had been made. She asked who had made such noise. I admitted I had. (I said, “Shhh.”) No one else did. I was punished. No one else was.

So, I’m not surprised the opposition is set on deleting him. They didn’t like him before and now they think they have a way to get rid of him.

Well, given that over the last 15 days I’ve not seen one iota of credible evidence that the Federal Gov’t failed in it’s duties in any significant or meaningful way, it’s pretty easy for the Pres to make the statement he did. Obviously though, as has been said many times before, there are people in the Republican forefront who are in charge of getting the message out and these people should be summarily fired ASAP. Just because the strategy of allowing the Left enough rope to hang themselves is so often successful doesn’t mean it will happen every single time. Although, perhaps this is exactly what’s going on and we’re just not patient enough…

- Eric.

The White House is helping the left and the MSM destroy themselves. They let the retards scream for awhile, then set them up with fake apologies and odd statements that make them froth. In the long run, the left is going to not be so much of a factor in the US anymore because of all of their stupidity these days. That will be awesome. The internet will help everyone remember how retarded and wrong the left was during these times.

I believe a lot of what Bush does comes from his religious faith. He’s not afraid to admit mistakes were made. I believe he prays a lot on a daily basis. Probably more so than most of our presidents in the past. His main advisor is God. I just have that feeling. I may be wrong. But it’s interesting to watch. And it will be very interesting to see how it all works out. He will never say “God suggested I do this”. But I bet it happens regularly and his advisors know it.

Thanks for the link to Info Theory (where I call for Bush to resign).

That post was actually crafted before Bush’s announcement claiming responsibility. I am pleased that he took this step, but actions are far more important than words from the hot seat.

I’m looking now for candor and action. Frankly, I am not sure that we can trust Bush as he has established a pattern of behavior that puts us at risk.

Until then, it seems to me that Cheney is up to the task.

Paul, you’re not looking for candor. You’re looking to score political points and destroy a President you hate. If you were actually looking for candor, you’d note that to date Bush has taken responsibility for the federal response, Nagin has now taken responsibility for the city response, but Blanco is still “lost in the days.”

If you were actually interested in candor, you’d look at FEMA response timelines during past storms and you’d note that the Katrina response wasn’t out of line with previous disasters. You’d also note that FEMA doesn’t even promise to arrive for 72-96 hours after a disaster. And you’d note that Blanco dithered, Nagin let the buses drown and corruption at the city and state level played a major role in the levee management for decades. You’d also note, as we have here, that New Orleans had decades to plan for a disaster like this, but failed to do so and was preparing to tell its residents that they were on their own if the big one hit. You’d also note the role the media and the race baiters have played in hyping the FEMA response while ignoring the city and state’s multiple meltdowns and failures.

But you didn’t note any of that at all. So I conclude that you’re a typical liberal and you’re only interested in destroying Bush. As far as I’m concerned, you’re another corpse puppeteer and you’re beneath contempt.

Bill,

I think you are confusing me with someone else. If you would review my blog, (or search on my name), my position would become more clear to you.

I’ve seen this coming for some time now. We are polarized into functional (and semi-functional) parties—just like a herd of bovines. After so many attacks from the interior players, we no longer are attuned to real problems.

We just let a wolf into the herd, one that exploited a systemic weakness in our defense, and we are taking little notice. That weakness stems from Bush’s management style—it is intrinsically reactionary and unsuitable for implementing the “Bush doctrine” (which is sound). This is compunded by the fact that he has a tendency to protect himself from critical information or to accept responsibility.

Bush’s statement the other day was a political necessity, but it was not an acceptance of responsibility—that can only be verified by action and in this case, resignation. What can Bush do to show us that he is doing everything that should be done to defend the country? He can’t. Instead, we simply have to toss him out when he has failed once too often. the next time will be more than we can bear. We would be fools to take that risk.

Bush has become the problem. Katrina just made this unequivocally clear. This latest reactionary failure follows a pattern that goes from 9/11 through Iraq, Plame/Rove all the way to today.

It’s time to end the pattern.

I can certainly see one pattern that needs to end. People such as yourself need to stop blaming Bush for every damn thing that happens in the world.

To wit, before Katrina even hit, the left was blaming its strength on him because he bounced the Kyoto protocol. Conveniently, Bush’s position on Kyoto has also been cited for causing terrorism and European hatred of the USA. Inconveniently, Bush’s position on Kyoto was identical to the Clinton position on Kyoto—and his administration was the one in power when Kyoto came about. Yet it’s all Bush’s fault.

To wit, Plame became a scandal because an element of the CIA was running a rogue operation using an unqualified ambassador to discredit the case for war against Iraq. But that’s Bush’s fault too.

To wit, FEMA’s response to Katrina was faster than its response to previous hurricanes. Faster. But the state and city meltdowns led to looting, chaos and death—which in your mind is part of some pattern that can only be broken by Bush’s resignation.

To wit…oh, what’s the point? You’re a petty point-scorer uninterested in the facts. Nothing I say will change your mind, it being in the possession of a zealotry not seen since the Inquisition. The fact is that the Democrats at the state and city levels in Louisiana failed utterly, while GOP officials in Mississippi and Alabama and Florida did just fine. But to you, that’s Bush’s fault. Is anyone other than Bush at fault for anything? Not in your sad little world.

Yes, there’s a pattern that needs breaking, and the sooner the better. People like yourself need to stop seeing GWB as the world’s boogeyman and educate yourselves that the world just doesn’t work the way you think it does. And it never will.

Paul Deignan’s comments above: “Bush has become the problem. Katrina just made this unequivocally clear. This latest reactionary failure follows a pattern that goes from 9/11 through Iraq, Plame/Rove all the way to today.”

There speaks a Ph.D. candidate - all theory, no reality.

Bill,

Bush was the authority (along with Rumsfeld) that could order USNORTHCOM into operation.

Hurricane Katrina required a federal response—with active duty troops and equipment. Those troops needed Bush’s order.

Nagin and Blanco are also culpable. The more they are to blame the more Bush is to blame. Nothing that they did makes Bush any less culpable—it makes him more.

Bush was out of touch and once he was engaged, didn’t have the political will to put the people ahead of a very myopic view of politics. As a result, people are dead that could have lived, our nation is a laughing stock, we have lost credibility, the damage has been compounded, and it will happen again and again and again.

Next time, will it be a nuke? Nothing that Bush has done here inspires any confidence in me that it will not.

Peggie,

Add to that a former MI officer. If you saw what I saw, I think you would agree with me that the country is not in the hands of a competent crew (and I just got a peep).

Here you go Bill, let’s talk about your facts:

1. Kyoto Protocol—was BS from the moment it was conceived—it has nothing to do with the hurricane. Why are you bringing it up?

2. Plame—was a partisan hack who with her husband misrepresented intelligence (of course she still works at the CIA and has not been fired). When Rove realized he created a controversy, he sat on his hands and did nothing. He did not come out and admit that he stated XYZ. Instead, he let the confidence of the American people in its government be diminished while he hid behind the delaying tactic of an unnecessary investigation.

Bush did not fire him as he should have. And this is candor from a close advisor/president? No, it is cronyism at the expense of the nation.

3. FEMA was riddled with political shills put in place by a President who after 9/11 put cronyism ahead of our security. If you want to defend FEMA’s response, your expectations of this government are already far too low.

Did you have anymore facts? I have some.

Furthermore: this Ph.D. candidate cannot write a clear paragraph. I’ve read his statements above and actually visited his site (but, then, I’m interested in facts).

“We are polarized into functional (and semi-functional) parties—just like a herd of bovines.

…

We just let a wolf into the herd, one that exploited a systemic weakness in our defense, and we are taking little notice. “

Aside from possible plagerism (Bill Whittle’s “Tribes” at www.ejectejecteject.com), he never clarifies his premises - just makes declarative sentences without substance. How can you polarize a herd of bovines; who’s the wolf (we’ve got a few).

My favorite inconsistency is this:

“That weakness stems from Bush’s management style—it is intrinsically reactionary.…”

Excuse me? Insisting the President resign isn’t?

and the gem: …”This is compunded (sic - ah the benefits of a fine education) by the fact that he has a tendency to protect himself from critical information or to accept responsibility.”

I’m confused - wasn’t that what started this argument in the first place - that President Bush took responsibility for Katrina federal failures?

Oh, that’s right. Talk to the hand, the face isn’t listening.

No Peggie,

As I wrote before, my call for Bush’s resignation precedes his belated claim of responsibility.

And as you must have noticed, I am not a professional writer. However, I am pleased that you seem to understand my point.

To answer the rest of your questions, follow the links in the posts to the political affiliation study and the transnational liberalism model.

Once you’ve read those, if you have any questions, I would be happy to reply.

Oh, and BTW, if there is plagerism, it is not mine.

(Blog posts have dates). My idea is well documented and goes back a couple years to a discussion at www.foreignpolicy.com

“The more they (Blanco and Nagin) are to blame, the more Bush is to blame…”

You need to clarify that one, Paul. It makes no sense on its face or in light of FEMA regs or in our federal system. By that logic, Nagin could sit on his hands, not follow the disaster plans, let thousands of people stay behind in the face of a hurricane, then encourage looting—and blame Bush. And you’d agree that it’s ultimately Bush’s fault, thus rendering local officials and their decisions irrelevant.

And surprise! That’s exactly what you asserted. Now explain it. Why are local failures Bush’s failures? Dazzle us with your MI brilliance, which I’m sure is relevant to hurricane relief in ways you haven’t shared with us yet.

Read the post Bill.

Nagin and Blanco are culpable.

If you have a subordinate authority that tells you, “I’m going to screw the pooch here and these people are SOL,” and those people are US citizens, are you more or less culpable then if he told you, “Things are great boss. I know exactly what I’m doing and its all under control”?

Are you more or less culpable if that subordinate burns a batch of french fries or if he fries a batch of Frenchies?

Paul, your socratic method is just plain irritating. “To answer the rest of your questions, follow the links in the posts to the political affiliation study and the transnational liberalism model.”

This must simply be to get traffic to your site, which one of your readers said was providing data for a study.

You are incorrect. I did not get your point. You appear to have nothing to say other than the President should resign.

“Nagin and Blanco are also culpable. The more they are to blame the more Bush is to blame. Nothing that they did makes Bush any less culpable—it makes him more.”

There is no justification for the above statement. That is quite simply the most stand-on-your-head statement I’ve seen in a long time.

Bryan Preston (NOT “Bill”, you nitwit) has given you facts, not circular mind-speak. And, if “MI” stands for military intelligence, it becomes very clear why you only got a “peep.”

Stop wasting people’s oxygen.

Your close attention to facts has you addressing me by the wrong first name.

That aside, you didn’t answer the question. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin aren’t Bush’s subordinates. Gov. Blanco is the elected executive of a sovereign state. Mayor Nagin is the elected executive of a city. They don’t work for Bush. They work for the people who voted them into office, who fwiw by and large don’t support Bush. Blanco and Nagin had assigned roles in the disaster, and failed to fulfill them. That is not Bush’s failure too. It’s not his failure at all.

You misunderstand the basics of federalism. That misunderstanding renders everything you say on this subject incorrect.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, for adjudication of competing laws between and within various sub-federal jurisdictions. That DOES NOT MEAN that the Federal Government has automatic dictatorial powers over state and local government every time Mother Nature burps, quite the opposite in fact. You would know this if you had more awareness of constitutional law than a lobotomized rock.

Don’t “bible quote” the Constitution to us when it is manifestly obvious that you are willfully pig-ignorant of its origin, the philosophy that generated it (classical liberalism, which made this a FEDERAL REPUBLIC, not a DIRECT DEMOCRACY), or the case law and precedence that surrounds it.

I bet this is the first time in your life you read that clause.

Bzzz, you’d lose that bet, since I have both read the Constitution and know what MCCULLOCH VS MADISON (1819) is about, unlike yourself.

Try Googling “Posse Comitatus Act,” nimrod.

Correction

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

I’m just recalling from memory here, but wasn’t McCollough v. Maryland a dispute aboute currency that helped establish federal supremacy of interstate commerce?

P.S. See comment in post above ref PCA.

Paul Deignan, have you demanded the resignation or impeachment of Nagin and Blanco?

Can you demonstrate that you were paying attention to the emergency planning mess in New Orelans and Louisiana prior to Katrina, or did this latest disaster introduce you to the existence of locally elected “subordnates” now deemed culpable at the expense of the President?

No, I won’t read your blog. You raised the matter here. Discuss it here as best you can.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

From McCollough v. Maryland.

P.S. I said earlier that Blanco and Nagin are criminally negligent and should be tried.

No, Maryland was trying to tax the local branch of the Bank of the United States, and the Court ruled that this improperly violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which you cited.

Educate yourself, I’m thankful not to have that job:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

If you’re making some sort of garbled argument that Bush should have over-ridden the PCA by invoking the Insurrection Act (as Ike did during the Little Rock desegregation struggle), then I can just imagine the “BUSHDIKTAT!” screaming coming from punks like you that we would be hearing right now if he had actually done so.

I don’t buy into “heads I win, tails you lose” games.