September 13, 2005
Bush fixes one disaster by forcing out Brown
When he quit on Monday, Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Mike Brown said it was "in the best interest of the agency and best interest of the president." Most of all, though he didn't say it, his departure was in the best interest of the nation.
President Bush might have thought "Brownie" was doing a "heck of a job," but few others did. Mr. Brown already had been sent back to Washington in disgrace after the botched federal response to Katrina. President Bush, on another high-profile make-up trip to New Orleans, claimed Monday that he had been so busy staying on top of the situation that he didn't know much about Mr. Brown's fate. "Maybe you know something I don't know," Mr. Bush said. "I've been working." Obviously, "Brownie" couldn't disappear fast enough for the White House.
Appointing a competent replacement is the best way to make Mr. Brown's failures start to fade. Reports on Monday named R. David Paulison, who was Miami-Dade County's fire chief during Hurricane Andrew, as a probable successor. Mr. Paulison, head of FEMA's emergency preparedness force, seems to have the kind of experience that Mr. Brown and so many other FEMA officials lacked.
Still, his credentials and track record at FEMA need to be carefully examined. That would be in marked contrast to the way President Bush selected Mr. Brown. The president didn't know much or care much about Mr. Brown's emergency-management qualifications -- or lack of them -- when he made him FEMA director. Mr. Brown's "qualifications" consisted of personal and political ties to Bush supporters, a fact that has been painfully obvious to Floridians since last year's onslaught of storms. Even as cities and Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie counties waited for reimbursement -- which still hasn't come -- FEMA rushed payments for fraudulent claims in Miami-Dade County, which wasn't hit. FEMA also paid to bury scores of people who couldn't have been killed by the storms.
The FEMA mess has prompted U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Jupiter, to file legislation to remove the agency from the Department of Homeland Security, where it landed after 9/11. The idea is to cut bureaucratic strings that, allegedly, slowed FEMA's response. It's fine to have a debate over FEMA's structure. But, as in debates over reform of the CIA, FBI or NASA, the people who run an agency are more important to its success than whatever organizational chart they work under.
Sticking with his "don't blame me" theme, President Bush said Monday, "There will be plenty of time to figure out what went right and what went wrong." Hiring Mr. Brown in the first place was something that went wrong.
Posted by Opinion staff at September 13, 2005 8:42 AMPresident Bush is by no means the first President to use the head job at FEMA for political patronage. I trust all of you who are outraged that he did so will not forget this lesson in future administrations. Perhaps we should make this job subject to Senate approval? Just kidding.
Posted by: Max Bouknecht at September 13, 2005 10:27 AMAnd so it remains... No one has ever said what is was that Mike Brown didn't do, that he could have done, besides watching more television.
Perhaps the Post could enlighten us, but that would require understanding the facts. Obviously, that is further than the Post is willing to go.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird at September 13, 2005 1:54 PMClearly, what we had here was a case of the blinkered having appointed the clueless.
When "Brownie" was first relieved (rightfully) of frontline duty and called back to Washington, you didn't need a political consultant to sense that he was totally detached. When asked what his first order of business would be on his arrival, he said he was going to have a margarita (cocktail) and then dinner with his family. Giddyup!
And now, president stupidhead finally admits, for the first time, that he was wrong. Will wonders never cease.
Posted by: Tim Christopher at September 13, 2005 5:01 PMI see another liberal has nothing to say. But, he says it so well.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird at September 13, 2005 7:31 PMI've been sitting here staring at Tim's post for the last 10 minutes, trying to remember the last time I heard someone use the term "stupidhead" and actually think they were being clever. As near as I can recall it was a 12-year-old girl who was angry with her little brother for something... but I can't remember what.
I can't believe this juvenile name-calling is truly representative of liberal thinking these days. Aren't there any serious liberals out there who would like to take part in an adult discussion of these issues? Aren't there any Democrats in the audience who actually have something thoughtful to contribute to the conversation?
Posted by: Gary Bokelmann at September 13, 2005 8:56 PMWell, Tim, I know I shouldn't do this, because your post was so meaningless, in any real context to the serious issues at hand, but never-the-less, you appear to have just enough intelligence to appreciate the humor in what I'm about to say........
...."the blinkered having appointed the clueless" does so remind me of the long eyelashes of Monica (the blinkered) peering at the "willie" of the former President (the clueless) - who in sexual matters was clearly "clueless" duh, she had sex with me, but I didn't have sex with her.....duh, depends on the what the meaning of "is", is.........
I can't believe you weren't just trying to make the rest of us smile a bit with your very English choice of words.
Gary, you and your tag team buddy are ganging up on anybody with an opinion. Last time I saw your fateful words was on a white supremist site about immagration and keep the mexicans out.
For the record, if Brownie were so great, he would still have a job. He screwed up, that's how he hit the door, and a smart man that did not get a political appointment is gainfully employed in Brownie's old position. End of burst of brilliance from a non white man...
Peggy
Peggy,
First of all, I have no "tag team buddies" here. I stand by what I wrote, and that's all. I have no idea what someone else is going to write, any more than you do. I'm not "ganging up" with anyone else here, any more than you are when you agree with another writer such as Tim.
When you throw out accusations like that, you're doing the same thing the rest of the liberal so-called "thinkers" around here do -- you just make stuff up and then present it as a fact. Just because you fervently believe something is so, that doesn't necessarily make it true, Peggy. That's the point I've been trying to make over and over on this site.
I realize now that it's a hopeless cause, and I wouldn't even bother replying to you except for what you wrote next: you accuse me of being affiliated with some white supremacist site, and that is a disgusting lie, which I will not let stand. I have NEVER written for such an outfit. I despise everything they stand for.
Several years ago I wrote a few articles for NewsMax, an online news service, including a series that reported on lax enforcement of immigration laws. Since then, I have learned that some of those articles were copied by other Web sites. I have no control over what they did with them and I am powerless to stop them. The copyright belongs to NewsMax -- if they want to fight it they will, but there's nothing I can do about it. For you to imply that I am somehow affiliated with white supremacists, simply because they reprinted an article without my permission, is preposterous. It would be like me accusing you of drunk driving because someone stole your car and caused an accident with it.
Furthermore, Peggy, I challenge you to point out anything even remotely racist in what I wrote in those articles. I reported on lapses in the way immigration laws were being enforced, and I interviewed several experts in the field. That's all. Of course, if you actually had read those articles you would already know that. And you would also already know that they weren't written for any disgusting white supremacist site. And you would also know better than to accuse me of being affiliated with them.
As infuriated as I am by your filthy slander, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll just assume you did not read the articles, and that your accusation was an honest mistake. But now you know the truth. Don't you ever make that mistake again. Ever. If you do, it will be the most expensive words you ever typed on a keyboard. Do I make myself clear?
As to the rest of your post, I simply can't follow you -- which, you may recall, is a problem I've encountered before. For example, you rant on about "Brownie," but I never said anything about him one way or the other. So why are you fussing at me about him? I have never defended him. I have never condemned him. I said nothing about him at all.
Then you conclude with, "End of burst of brilliance from a non white man..." To put this politely, Peggy, I have no earthly idea what that's supposed to mean. What is this "burst of brilliance" you are referring to? And who are you talking about here? Are you still talking about Brown? Or his replacement? Or me? The whole remark is simply incoherent.
Could I ask you to explain what you mean? Or would that be considered "ganging up" on you?
Peggy is just repeating the conventional wisdom that Mike Brown screwed up. However, besides the fact he was not watching television, no one has come up with anything he did not do that he should have done nor anything he did do that he should not have done.
It seems we have to blame someone for Katrina and it certainly couldn't be Democratic politicians in Louisianna, so Brown was picked as a proxy for Bush.
As far as "End of burst of brilliance from a non white man...", I believe she is merely saying she is brilliant but not a white man.
I remember an Engish professor many years ago complaining about a student "writing for himself, not the reader". That seems to be what Peggy does.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird at September 15, 2005 6:38 AMI hesitate to pursue this since it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this editorial, but Peggy's charge that I am affiliated with a white supremacist site is truly hurtful and really bothers me. So here is the original article that was picked up by that loathesome site:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/8/184317.shtml
If anyone bothers to read it -- which Peggy obviously did not -- they will find it's a pretty staid and dry report on how the INS tried, and failed, to crack down on illegal employers in the meat-packing industry. I challenge Peggy -- or anyone else -- to find anything even remotely racist in what I wrote there.
As I said, this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but Peggy, you're the one who opened this door. Without bothering to check, without bothering to read the article in question, you deliberately implied that I am affiliated with some bunch of racist scum. I have denied it, and explained how they misused an article I wrote for a legitimate news site. I have now also presented the original article, which shows clearly there is nothing even remotely racist in it.
If you have any decency, if you have any integrity whatsoever, you will retract your filthy insinuation and apologize publicly.
The cat calling the kettle black, don't you think, Gary? Read your posts to everyone else.
I can't help it if you haven't noticed whree your voice lies. I am sure no one else ever told you where your words lie. If I was quoted in a porno site, I would be alarmed. But what did you say? It's not your copyright problem?
I'm not appologizing for where your articles are housed. So, if you are a man of integrity and God, post haste redefining your character.
Posted by: peggy at September 16, 2005 10:48 AMDamn it, Peggy, stop misquoting me. I did not say it was "not my copyright problem." What I said was I am powerless to do anything about it. There's a big difference -- and you know it.
Was I upset when those jerks reprinted an article I wrote? Of course I was. But -- let me say this AGAIN, Peggy -- I cannot do anything to stop them. That's NOT the same as just blowing it off as "not my problem," which is what you just accused me of doing. As I said, Peggy, you know the difference. So stop misquoting me. It's a fundamentally dishonest thing for you to do.
The rest of your post is just disjointed and impossible to follow, as usual. For example, you say, "I am not apologizing for where your articles are housed." Well, who the hell asked you to? I didn't ask you to "apologize for where the article is housed." I asked you to apologize for insinuating that I somehow am affiliated with white supremacists. Again, there's a big difference. And you know that, too. But again, Peggy, you apparently don't care.
Finally, you close with, "So, if you are a man of integrity and God, post haste redefining your character." Peggy, what the hell does that mean?
You're doing it again -- babbling and throwing words together that no one else can follow. What does "post haste redefining your character" mean? It's just plain incoherent.
I tried to respond directly and substantively to what you wrote, Peggy. But all I got in return was more sinister insinuations and disjointed babble. No matter how carefully I try to respond, you completely ignore everything I write, then you turn around and deliberatley misrepresent what I said, and then you spit out more nonsense phrases like "post haste redefining your character" -- which makes no sense whatsoever.
It is literally impossible to carry on a logical, intelligent discussion with you. I don't know if it's because you're incapable of maintaining a single train of thought for more than a few minutes, or if you're just basically dishonest and decide to change the subject whenever someone makes a point you can't answer. Either way, I'm done wasting my time with you.
Believe whatever you want, Peggy. That's what you're going to do anyway, no matter how carefully I try to answer you. So to hell with you. I'm done reading your crap.
