On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 00:06 -0600, Lowell C. Savage wrote: > Greetings again, Frank! > > You know, I should have gone back earlier and more carefully read the > different news items and press releases below. It looks to me like you've > basically confirmed the Newsmax story even though you called it "bogus." > The linked Newsmax story has been corrected so it no longer claims that the > governor did NOT declare a state of emergency. However, the SOE declaration > that you noted (as I pointed out in other posts) did not provide for the > necessary permission and authority for Bush to move troops in (either > Nationalized NG or active duty military). > > Then there is the press release you pointed to. It appears to still be > vague about exactly what military and NG assistance she is going to permit. > Even though she agrees to a "single military commander" for federal forces, > she is clearly keeping state assets and personnel under state control and > then she wants to "co-locate" a "coordinating officer". Cool. So, now the > feds can get tied up "coordinating" with state officials who probably have > to run to "mommy Blanco" whenever they want to wipe their noses. Oh yes, > and I just noticed that "over 25 National Guard states currently being > commanded by the Lousiana Adjutant General." So Bush gets the blame while > Blanco keeps control of what is happening. > > The Newsmax story says that the feds wanted to take over the NO evacuation > and that it was refused by the Governor. It appears that the press release > you pointed to only confirmed that. Then, there's this other press release > from Sept. 3, "Yesterday, I personally briefed President Bush on our > requirement for additional federal assistance. In response to this request, > this morning President Bush announced more than 7,000 additional troops are > on the way to help with hurricane recovery." > > http://gov.louisiana.gov/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=1004 > > In other words, there isn't a thing that Bush can do until "mommy Blanco" > tells him he can. Like I said, it's a neat political trick: make yourself > the bottleneck, grandstand, and blame the other guy for what you are doing.
Federal law prohibits the Federal Government (President) from taking over NG troops for disaster recovery w/o written consent/request by the governor of the state in question. Nothing either Bush or Blanco can do about that other than follow the law. When the Governor refuses it, the President has very limited options, and can not make the decision to unilaterally do so - he doesn't have the authority. Further, according to the Red Cross and other people (some of whom I know), they were ready to go, but the STATE of Louisiana's "Department of Homeland Security" denied them access and refused to let them in. Whether or not Blanco had anything to do with that I can't say. But it is a fact and a major blunder IMO on the part of the STATE government of LA. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.redcross/index.html (If FrankG claims CNN is biased to favor Bush we'll all *know* he's more than a touch crazy. ;) ) I heard an interview with the guy on the radio and he said he was told that they were trying to evacuate people, not provide places for them to stay. They said that if they set up shelters it would cause people to flock there and not want to leave, and they wanted everyone out instead. For those of yu (such as FrankG) who have clearly never been involved with the NG, it is a state asset. The President is Commander in Chief *only* when the NG is activated for combat or combat support. At ALL other times, the state NG commander and the state Governor. FrankG claims he is "equally biased", yet demonstrates he is not. He rabidly defends the Democrat and ignorantly blames the Republican. If he were "equally biased", he'd be attacking/defending them both. He does not. However, as you stated, a SoE is not a troop use situation, nor is it a mandatory evacuation or even an evacuation request. They are distinct things. My county has had many State of Emergency declarations issued with not a single one involving troops of any military or even a "you might want to possibly consider maybe leaving" request or suggestion. Many states, such as Idaho, have laws forbidding the use of non-state troops w/o consent of the governor and/or legislature. Some states actually classify it as any armed personnel. Idaho is one such state. Granted, all she had to do was sign the damned document to let the fed handle the situation, yet she chose not to. I won't try to guess her reasons why, but that she chose to not do so despite the requests being made is not in dispute. That said, we do have another scenario that played out rather interestingly. Mayor of New Orleans declares a mandatory evacuation. Governor Blanco *publicly* countered it saying "The mayor certainly has ordered that but the governor, and that would be me, would have to enforce it or implement it. We are trying to determine whether there is an absolute justification for that" I saw the interview with her where she said it. It aint no newsmax story, nor is it a FNC story. It's her story. No spin needed, we can all read her words right there. They clearly undermine and/or counter the Mayor's proclamation. Is this perhaps one of the causes of the LA failures? They've tried to emulate the federal structure while having no clue as to why it is set that way? Reminds me of the story about a little girl baking with her mother. Mom makes the ham, cuts the ends off and sticks it in the pan. She asks mommy why. Her mommy replies "That's the way my mother always did it so that's how I've done it". When the girl asks grandmother, her response is "Well I don't know why your mother does it. I did it because my pan was too small." Did the state of LA simply try to imitate the federal model because it sounded good? Even if they did, they clearly failed to do it correctly, as the federal government still leaves the control in the hands of the local authorities unless expressly given it by them. Obviously, if the Governor is who determines if a city can be mandated to evacuate, and that the governor implements or enforces it, they have decided they are to be in charge. While FrankG may try to claim that her outright claiming it to be *her* decision is a result of political bias to protect someone else, it won't make it true. Now, I'm not a fan of mandatory evacuations because I think they are stupid. To tell someone they have to leave or face the risk of death and to threaten/use lethal force to make it happen is the height of stupidity. It is essentially "You might die if you stay, so leave or we shoot you.". However, IF I were to ever consider such an action, the situation that is currently seen in NO certainly ranks high on the "could happen" meter. Hmmm even after accounting for the standard "journalism" exaggeration and sensationalism , it is a city 2/3rds under water, very polluted waters with many health risks. Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me. I know if I were governor and the Mayor of Boise were in a similar situation I would not be publicly countering him on it -- even if I disagreed. That said, the NG and police have it right, IMO. The NG says "Not our responsibility, we won't do it" and they are right. The police say "look we've got thousands who do want to leave, we are worrying abut them". Now, General Honore, from what I've seen I like this guy. He don't take crap from any reporter. He is not afraid to correct a reporter on gross ignorance and clear attempts at sensationalism (just hear is rant on being asked about "snipers"!). While I've stayed out of this particular discussion till now (till I had more info) it certainly does give the appearance of her wanting to maintain control; from not allowing the fed to coordinate the effort and command troops to countermanding the Mayor of New Orleans declaring a mandatory evacuation. Something is beginning to smell a bit rank, IMO. On August 28th (as in before landfall) Bush did declare the Emergency and issue orders for federal troops for Mississippi. He had been given the authority to do so. Florida didn't feel the need for one (It was "only a cat1"). Whether you like it or not, the laws place the responsibility in the hands of the states, and the Fed (such as FEMA) are not the authorities. Absent them being given the permission, they are largely powerless to take instantiative action. -- Random Fortune of the moment: When some people decide it's time for everyone to make big changes, it means that they want you to change first. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
