Printable View
Are you from the U.S., do you think their should be an independent Katrina commission to evacuate the various federal, state, and local aspects of the disaster? Note: House/Senate Majority led investigation, or the President's stated desire to investigate his agencies is NOT independent.
Im not from the US. Keeping POLITICS aside, I believe it would be in your nations best interrest with an independent investigation. Why? Quite simple, to improve your alertness and preparedness for future natural disasters and man made ones (read: terrorim)
It is important that politics doesnt influence this investigation, the purpose isnt to blame the current admin. or glorify it, it is to enhance the procedures which clearly arent at 100%.
Uhm ... was is really necessary to first start a thread about the investigation and then make an additional thread with a poll?
I would appreciate if existing threads on Katrina would be used more frequently to add new developments (I will take the liberty to merge/close threads in the future to avoid cluttering the Backroom with redundant threads)
Sure its necessary, Red Harvest must find every angle in which to attack Bush and the Republicans. Soon he'll post a thread on how Bush's wifes' douche has poisoned the Rio Grande and is killing the illegals swimming across the river.. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Guess we'll need another investigation for that one as well... tin foil hats for everyone
Yes indeed an investigation needs to be done - And futhermore I would use some retired and non-political Military Officers to conduct the investigation - along with a couple of civilian specialists in Emergancy planning and response. (edit: should of stated non-politically connected)Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I would steer completly away from anyone in the current or past political appratus from about 1995 to now to at least attempt a base of honest verus partisan politics.
Sounds good - however, I fear that neither of the parties will be so smart. Both will try to include some with bias towards their side. Let's hope for the sake of the potential next innocent victims that US leaders will show this much cleverness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Non-US. And what Sjakihata said, except my additional motive is I want to learn with an eye to what might go wrong in my own country.
Dont see the point of an investigation. If Bush can get away with 9/11 and not lose his job this should be no problem.
Unfortunately.
I've never seen polls as being primarily discussion threads. Still don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Get away with 9/11? It sounds like you are implying that Bush directly caused 9/11 and knew it was going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
The investigation can not focus on placing blame on individuals - because if it does that then you are right there is no point.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
However if the investigation is used correctly- much like a Military After Action Review - where problems are identified, shortcomings are addressed, and new techniques and prodecures are established to prevent what occured in the case of New Orleans - then the investigation is more then worth it.
Is Bush a terrorist? No.
Was the Talibon? Yes.
Was Saddam Hussain? Yes.
Are the Chechnyans? Yes... What? ~D
Yah lancelot, wtf? ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
Its quite simple really.
Bush presides over the worst security breach in US history and doesnt get the elbow.??? That is WTF!
Yet Clinton has a little fiddle and he is nigh on ejected from the office.
On this alone I believe Bush/his policies/his government's aptitude, whatever you want to call it, will face any sort of reprimand/punishment.
This investigation (or potential investigation) is not about placing guilt, it was a HURRICANE dammit, the point is to learn and be better at PREPARING for and HANDLING the crisis. No guilt, just increased knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Tell that to the Democratic Party and Red Harvest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
Is this the reason (excuse) for Bush not getting thr axe over 9/11 then?
(perhaps a topic for a different thread though)
Why should President Bush get the elbow for being in office during a Terrorist Attack? Was a President given the for the Okalhoma Federal Building Bombing. Was a President given the elbow for the first bombing attempt of the World Trade Center?Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Try again - it wasn't for the fiddle - it was for lying on the stand.Quote:
Yet Clinton has a little fiddle and he is nigh on ejected from the office.
The investigation should not be about punishment - but about identifying and fixing problems as Sjakihata has correctly pointed outQuote:
On this alone I believe Bush/his policies/his government's aptitude, whatever you want to call it, will face any sort of reprimand/punishment.
There is no need to conduct a witch hunt over a natural disaster.
Only if you could target God ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Personally, I think if a President, his party and the people in charge of the various agencies at the time dont lose their jobs or even face the possibility of losing their job/facing an investigation/whatever when something with the magnitude of 9/11 happens, there is something very wrong. (Last I read NO-ONE got the axe, that might have changed, I dont know. But does it not seem kinda odd to think no-one was held responsible for that?)
And I dont really think comparing 9/11 with your other examples is valid. 9/11 was a HUGE security breach and a massive highly coordinated operation, its just not the same.
So lied on the stand about having a fiddle, big deal...in my book thats still not as bad as the 9/11 fiasco.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
You don't even want to have an investigation. ~:rolleyes: I'm for having the whole thing investigated. Fault will be found with various aspects. You can't do an investigation without finding mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Those who feel local and state are to blame should be crying loudest for an independent investigation. They are not. Why? Is it because they recognize the President and his post 9/11 appointments and policies are largely at fault? This smells of cover up, 100%.
Of course, there is for important things like BJ's. Where is that hypocrisy thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Interesting you mention Clinton. Had he spent some of the 8 years he was in office securing the country rather than playing sexual predator (among other circus acts like flowers and whitewater) the events of 9/11 wouldn’t have been able to exist. I can’t blame a president that is barley in the first half of his first term for something that had been planned years in advance. Clinton dropped our countries pants and left them down and Bush didn’t have the chance to pull them up before 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Bush has been less than stellar as a president but he wasn’t responsible for 9/11 and he is not responsible for this mess in NO. He is responsible for keeping an inept guy like Brown in charge of FEMA and should be chastised for it but he doesn’t deserve the “elbow”. :bow:
Apparently, it's only a witch hunt if isn't directed at the Democrats in Louisiana. If it's all about the responsibility of Nagin or Blanco, then it's "fair and balanced" and accurate. Uh huh.
Bearing in mind how bipartisan America is, I suspect it's necessary.
Here is how some real Mississippians feel:
From CNN article Link
Quote:
While Cheney spoke, a passer-by hurled an expletive at the vice president. "First time I've heard it," Cheney said, when asked if he was hearing a lot of such sentiments.
Most of the people Cheney met with were friendly. Lynne Lofton, whose house further down the street was completely destroyed, was an exception.
"I think this media opportunity today is a terrible waste of time and taxpayer money," she said. "They've picked a nice neighborhood where people have insurance and most are Republicans."
And what do bjs have to do with liberals trying to use a tradgedy to attack the Bush administration?Quote:
Of course, there is for important things like BJ's. Where is that hypocrisy thread?
You mean conservatives using the tragedy to attack the Democrats in Louisiana, don't you? Or conservatives using the tragedy to attack welfare in general, don't you? (see Azi's thread)
Why would an investigation necessarily have to be a witchhunt?
It seems to me that it is quite normal to make an investigation (after the dust clears) to assess if the response to the disaster was appropriate, especially if the first impression suggests that things did not run as well as they might have.
The investigation might lead to the conclusion that those who were in charge at the different levels of administration acted as effective as possible in an exceptionally bas situation.
It might lead to the conclusion that people on whatever level failed in the preparation for such a disaster or in the recation to the disaster - and it might even lead to the conclusion that on some administration levels were borderline criminally negligent and should face consequences.
It should definitely lead to some conclusions regarding what could be done better if a similar situation arises again.
What reason should anybody have to reject an independent and objective investigation in such a situation?