Head of FEMA was fired from his last job (organizing horse shows)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Well, what do we have here? Could it be someone editing out part of a post and then making a personal attack over the edited portion?

---

Actually I edit out the insult. And put that in place - which is the same type of statement as I quoted of yours.

Quote:

---

You really need to grow up, Redleg; or seek psychiatric care before you hurt yourself. There are 12 year old posters in these forums who act more adult than you do.

---

Now that statement is uncalled for and shows a maturity level way beneath my own. Maybe you should take your own advice here also.

:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I think we can find the truth in the difference between Mississippi and Loiusiana. Mississippi did all right, while LA did terrible. Since Bush was the President for both of them, the main difference must be in the local (where the mayor did not implement the evacuation plan) and state (where the governor wrung her hands for 24 hours before making a decision).

---

Mississippi and Alabama were not hit nearly as hard as Louisiana. You can see that if you study the various disaster area maps of the Gulf region. Most importantly, Mississippi had little flooding, and the flooding that took place was in coastal areas that are thinly populated and easily evacuated and controlled. And for the record, this is what Mississippi's Senator Trent Lott (R) had to say about Michael Brown on CBS:

'If he doesn't solve a couple of problems that we've got right now, he ain't going to be able to hold the job, because what I'm going to do to him ain't going to be pretty.'

Even noted CIA agent-outer Bob Novak is suggesting Brown's removal:

The Democrats on the ground, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, have done little to commend themselves. But that does not excuse the federal performance, in the candid opinion of many Republicans. To start with, these Republicans talk about taking FEMA back from the Homeland Security Department. They agree that heads must roll, certainly Brown's and possibly Chertoff's.

Quote:

---

And for the record, this is what Mississippi's Senator Trent Lott (R) had to say about Michael Brown on CBS:

'If he doesn't solve a couple of problems that we've got right now, he ain't going to be able to hold the job, because what I'm going to do to him ain't going to be pretty.'

---

I agree.

I don't know about Chertoff, but he wasn't doing great.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I agree.

I don't know about Chertoff, but he wasn't doing great.

Crazed Rabbit

---

I agree too. Why are we so apprehensive to swing the ax on these incompetent people? This is not the first time Brown has screwed up. If I were a week late for a deadline my job would be in jeopardy.

As I said in the other thread, having put his arm around Brown while touring the relief effort in Alabama and having said, on camera, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!" there is not a rat's chance in hell that Bush is going to admit he made a mistake and fire the guy. Bush has never admitted any culpability for anything. The words "I made a mistake" will never issue from his mouth. Even if he wanted to say so, Rove and the rest of the Bush handlers wouldn't allow it. Bush is infallible. Since he appointed Brown; Brown must be infallible too. Bush said he's doing a good job; so he must be doing a good job. End of story. The entire disaster will be pinned on the only partially to blame Democrats in state and local government in Louisiana. If a way can be found, and problems in Republican run Alabama and Mississippi will be blamed on Democrats too. Probably something along the lines of "New Orleans sucked all of our resources away from Mississippi and Alabama" or some other nonsense.

When it comes to blame this is a case of “if the shoe fits” but this is a shoe that fits a lot of guilty feet. Democrats were in charge of NO but are only partly to blame but I don’t think anyone will escape some prosecution. I would still like to see some people step down from office for incompetence or some people get sacked for being incompetent.

Aren't most appointments given to political flunkies? If so, then isn't making your boss look bad worse than utter incompetence at your appointed position? If Brown gets canned, the real reason will be the drop in Bush's poll values, not the dead people in New Orleans.

Since Bush has been in office, who has he fired, aside from dissenters (Powell, O'Neill)? Drink the Kool-Aid, stay the course, and your job is safe. Disagree with the administration, now that's grounds for removal!

Brown now is being recalled back to DC, Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen is now in charge on-site.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...ton/index.html

Not sure if they think he is no longer needed there, or if they are just trying to get him out of the public eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Brown now is being recalled back to DC, Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen is now in charge on-site.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...ton/index.html

Not sure if they think he is no longer needed there, or if they are just trying to get him out of the public eye.

---

Or maybe they want someone half competant in charge...

Might be being a bit hopeful though. They probably just want him out of the public eye.

He "exaggerated" his resume. He claims that he was "assistant city manager" in charge of emergency response. He was actually an intern...for the city manager. ~D I've read the comments of the city manager. He had nice things to say about Brown, but said that was an intern, not an assistant city manager and that nobody reported to Brown.

I believe he was selected because the Coast Guard is acknowledged by all as having done a fine job. They were on the scene early (since they prepared and staged properly.) Since they have maritime authority for rescue, I don't think they faced much in the way of artificial barriers (real or imagined.)

There is talk of appointing a "hurricane czar." I'm not opposed to it, but it is too late to do that much good. This should have been done before the hurricane struck land if it was going to be much more than cosmetic.

One problem my wife is running into is that there is no national system for tracking folks. They might be recorded going into a shelter, but when they leave it is not recorded, nor are their whereabouts. There is not a national registry so that folks can link up, find relatives etc. Mass friggin' chaos at the Federal level and it is preventing help from being provided efficiently where it is needed. There is no real national response plan for anything big like this, nor has there been any leadership emerge to really organize one.

Right now the efforts are done at very small scale. Folks that have housing drive up, ask who wants to go with them, and they leave. The local communities and churches are working with individual families to help them get into a viable state. FEMA has not given instructions on how to handle housing vouchers for those that already had them... There seems to be a lot more concern by Dubya's appointees about potential fraud, than helping victims.

The more I think about it, military generals (ex or reserve) are probably the best people to put in charge at FEMA. When a disaster hits, what is the key training required to cope? Organization, logistics, and leadership, in difficult, unpredictable circumstances. Isn't that what they teach generals these days? Doesn't seem to me to be much difference between a war zone and a disaster zone. In both cases, you need food, supplies, and medical care for large numbers of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The more I think about it, military generals (ex or reserve) are probably the best people to put in charge at FEMA. When a disaster hits, what is the key training required to cope? Organization, logistics, and leadership, in difficult, unpredictable circumstances. Isn't that what they teach generals these days? Doesn't seem to me to be much difference between a war zone and a disaster zone. In both cases, you need food, supplies, and medical care for large numbers of people.

---

Exactly. And who do you really need to respond to damaged infrastructure, reach those in peril, etc? The military.

Anyone else think the words 'Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job' are going to enter the pantheon of Bush gaffes, right up there with 'mission accomplished' and 'bring it on'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Anyone else think the words 'Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job' are going to enter the pantheon of Bush gaffes, right up there with 'mission accomplished' and 'bring it on'?

---

Yep, should be right up there with those.

Cheney called the efforts so far "very impressive" or something like that. Of course, Cheney is used to committing fraud, just look at the financial shenanigans he pulled at Haliburton.

I think you can point the reason for Thad Allen being put in charge at the Posse Comitatus Act. The Coast Guard is already considered a law enforcment agency. Putting Allen in charge does not in any way violate the Posse Comitatus Act. He can act for the same reason that Gen. Honore couldn't. The media bungled the entire mess when making it seem by their shoddy reporting that Honore was refusing to help with the mandatory evacuation. In fact, he couldn't help. As he stated, that would be law enforcement. Under Federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act, he is prohibited from using federal troops for law enforcement purposes, except in very specific circumstances, such as an Act of Congress. Those circumstances don't apply; so Honore was legally bound to not help with anything resembling law enforcement, such as forced evacuations. Thad Allen is under no such legal restraint, being from the Coast Guard.

National Guard troops can be used but only if they are still under state authority. Once called up for federal military service, they are also restrained under that Act until officially released back to state authority. Even though Honore has state Guard troops under his command at the moment, he also has federal units from the 82nd Airborne and others.

I don't know if this is anything to do with FEMA, but does anyone else think it is odd, this decision to leave the bodies in NO uncollected for so long?

Of course, prioritise rescuing the living, but if you are passing a dead body with a team of police or National Guard, why not stop, bag it and either move it to storage or arrange for it to be moved? Was it really sensible to leave bodies on the fringes of large groups of refugees sheltering in the convention centre? To leave bodies on the roadside or floating in the water?

It seems to contrast starkly with the "leave no one behind" approach you here attributed to the US army in combat zones. Here you have arguably a less pressured situation, plus there's a clear public health issue with leaving corpses to fester in the water. And I'm not convinced there are too many to handle - I suspect the true figure of dead in NO will be a lot less than 10,000.

I was reading an article by a UK journalist contrasting (unfavourably) the rescue and relief effort after Katrina with that after the Tsunami. He said the Thai army were collecting bodies within a couple of hours of the Tsunami.

Maybe it's just another symptom of an under-resourced operation, but it just seems strange to me. To be honest, it smacks of a lack of commitment and determination by the people organising the rescue and relief work.

My understanding was that they didn't want to be transporting dead bodies in the same craft as rescued evacuees. I do believe, recently anyhow, they've been trying police up the bodies a little for later collection though. A grim task, no doubt....

On the bodies thing. Yes, like most of the post storm efforts it shows disorganization. However, there was really no place to put them other than in a heap somewhere. With no morgues or refrigeration it was so far from the norm for handling these things (in the U.S.) that the response appears to have been a sort of paralysis.

The transport was indeed being used for live folks, and was limited enough that pets were not being moved--which creates a big problem for later.

I've always thought the "leave no bodies behind" military mantra was a bit stupid. As far as I'm concerned, if you know I'm dead, I don't want you risking your neck to grab my corpse. The last thing I want happening is somebody else getting killed or maimed for my lifeless shell. Likewise, if you're alive, I'll stick my neck out for you and do whatever I can, but once you are gone...well, I'm not Jesus so don't be expecting miracles.

There has been some very bizarre "compartmentalizing" of tasks like body collection.

This whole effort shows our system flat out doesn't work once you reach a truly large scale disaster. Scrap the whole damned thing ("national response plan") and start over. Put together a group of professionals to figure out how to handle these kind of emergencies. Rewrite the laws if needed to allow a working system. First, identify the system that is needed, THEN rewrite the laws, rather than trying to make the system fit laws that really aren't meant to handle these situations.

I don't know if the story is true or not, because I haven't researched it; but CNN made a little tiny mention of FEMA not yet signing the contract with the third party company they've brought in to collect and deal with the dead bodies, getting them to the morgue for ID, etc. I don't know whether it's just typical FEMA (or government in general) red tape, or some sort of dispute over compensation that is the reason for the delay; but CNN seemed to think that this was the reason. Does anyone know if Halliburton has a body collection subsidiary? ~;)

And now Brown is gone. Resigned, not fired (but probably with a gun to his head...).
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/12/kat...act/index.html