It’s not loyalty. It’s the blantant refusal to admit he made a mistake in hiring people such as Brown in the first place.
Yeah you’re totally correct. What bothers me is that it doesn’t occur to him that keeping the guy on as a consult looks even worse then admitting he fucked up in the first place. I don’t expect Bush to realize that, because frankly, I think he’s legally insane. I would expect Rove or one of his handlers however, to be aware of this, and to take action accordingly.
That Michael Williams guy on the Evening News intimated that by keeping Brown on the payroll, the Administration can keep control of his testimony and press releases.
So they aren’t as dumb as they appear.
Better not let Bricker catch you making statements like that, unless you’re able to post a link to a copy of the court-generated declaration of incompetency.
You’re right. I’ll just say that some of his decisions and motivations baffle me. Although I think Monstro is on to something.
I followed Brown’s testimony on CNN whenever I could at the office today, and couldn’t wait to get home to get other peoples’ take on it.
My favorite parts were that he regreted not getting Nagin and Blanco together to coordinate, combined with the 150 disasters he’d presided over. I guess all those other 150 had city and state authorities who melded themselves seamlessly with no dispute or communication issues.
I read a quote today from Brown who said something to the effect of “People can’t expect the government to bail them out whenever there’s a disaster.” Interesting comments from the person who was in charge of, you know, the agency that is supposed to, when requested, bail out people whenever there is a disaster.
Brown is incompetent, stupid, and useless. He blamed everyone except himself - The White House, Homeland Security, governor, mayor, everyone. He is beneath contempt and if I were king for a day, he would have been fired. No consulting, no advisory position, no two weeks notice, just “get the hell out”.
What? You expect him to be a superhero?
I say this because that was one of his defensive tactics. As if only a superhero could have done a better job.
This was front page news this morning. You know, I don’t get it. I thought the Republican Party was supposed to be about personal responsibility, admitting your mistakes, and fixing them. Not this guy.
Mr. Brown, when you took this job, you took responsibility for coordinating the federal response to disasters. The federal response was a disaster. Deal with it, and be glad the consequences you’re suffering are far more mild than the consequences the people of Mississippi and Louisiana are suffering.
With no respect for Mr. Brown whatsoever,
CJ
At this point I tend to agree with you, particularly after hearing Brown challenging publicly the slanderous reports of resume padding and limited experience focusing mainly on his association with an equestrian organization. How come congress never challenged his appointment huh?
Perhaps I haven’t been paying attention, but up till Katrina in New Orleans, I just haven’t heard of any ground shaking criticism of that organization, and I think that is primarily due to the fact that governors like Bush in Florida have done a pretty good job preparing for hurricanes. Its pretty clear that the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana comepletely fucked up, creating a disaster and putting themselves in a position whereby FEMA was unable to utilize their (Louisiana’s) resources for an immediate comprehensive recovery.
Before I join the bandwagon in lynching Brown, I would like to be assured that someone else could have done a better job. After all, a couple of days ago I saw a report of dozens of generators that had been shipped to a gulf coast city sitting idle for lack of fuel.
Brown had to go, not for any lack of experience, but for a lack of credibility induced by the slanderous media which would make it impossible for anyone who requires human resources (let alone without any authority over them) to function effectively.
I’m very uncomfortable with the treatment of this convenient scapegoat. For Democrats it is another example of a Bush political appointment to castigate. For Republicans it is a deflection for what I perceive as serious shortcomings in provisions for FEMA to effectively administrate its mandate.
I have, and I wasn’t looking particularly hard. A lot of FEMA people were getting fed up with the professuionals getting elbowed out, and a lot of people left.
As I’ve noted before, though, FEMA boasted about its track record last year in dealing with hurricanes in Florida, saying that it had gotten everything ready, and had cooperated closely with state officials. (And no one challenged that aspect, although some hinted that it was because thety were courting Fl;orida votes.) You’d never guess it was the same agency with the same people this year.
ROFL.
Can you expand on this, please? I noticed Brown claimed yesterday that news reports about his resume padding and lack of experience were distortions. However, at least in the snippet I heard, he offered no specific rebuttal. So what about these accusations is untrue?
Not for Republicans, silly. For everybody else whose mistake is not being a Republican.
Come on! For Republican apologists ‘‘is not’’ counts as a definitive factual rebuttal to anything, just as “is so” is a crushing, undeniable proof of their opponent’s malfeasance.
There is no defence to putting an incompetent horse fancier in charge of FEMA just like there is no defence of all the crap FEMA pulled from cutting phone lines to not noticing a massive centre full of survivors that had been on national TV for the previous 24 hours.
So long as there is some conceivable wriggle room they’ll deny responsibility and people here will propagate the bullshit.
I have it on good authority that the NO mayor flew in David Copperfield to make the whole Conference Centre vanish, just to make Bush look bad. You can hardly expect Brownie to get help in there when his helicopters couldn’t even spot it can you?
You haven’t been paying attention – FEMA had come under scathing criticism for its response to hurricane Andrew in 1992, for much the same reasons that Brown is being savaged. See here, for example.
Anyone know where I can find a good summary of exactly what he did wrong that wasn’t SOP? I’m not defending the guy, I really would like to see.
SOP isn’t a defence when a city has been flooded and people need rescuing. All this ‘we wanted to help but couldn’t because someone hadn’t dotted the i on their sig requesting help’ is just bullshit.
I know that. I want to know how much of the problem was a long-existing structural problem with FEMA versus Michael Brown’s incompetence.