The only thing more annoying than bad government is an administration that doesn’t care to fix what is broken. Enter the current administration:
The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response.
The White House this week also formally notified Representative Richard H. Baker, Republican of Louisiana, that it would not support his legislation creating a federally financed reconstruction program for the state that would bail out homeowners and mortgage lenders. Many Louisiana officials consider the bill crucial to recovery, but administration officials said the state would have to use community development money appropriated by Congress.
The White House’s stance on storm-related documents, along with slow or incomplete responses by other agencies, threatens to undermine efforts to identify what went wrong, Democrats on the committees said Tuesday.
“There has been a near total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation that we have a responsibility to do,” Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said at Tuesday’s hearing of the Senate committee investigating the response. His spokeswoman said he would ask for a subpoena for documents and testimony if the White House did not comply.
I simply fail to understand how this sort of communication can or should be considered confidential. I am under no illusion that Democrats would honestly or fairly examine the evidence, and Iam fairly sure they will distort or portray in the worst possible light all the internal communications for political advantage. That is what opposition parties do, and specifically, that is what desperately out-of-power political parties do. You guys do remember the Rep. Dan Burton investigating Clinton’s cat, Socks?
But just because they are going to do that is no excuse to not release what was known and when. I want to know what happened, and I want it fixed, if there is anything that can be fixed.
*** Update ***
From the comments:
A simple question: What precedent is there for turning over confidential executive branch documents under this and earlier administrations?
While I don’t have time to look at the moment, I’d be willing to bet that preceding Presidents (Democrat and Republican) also maintained that this kind of communication must be held private to allow the function of the performance of the Executive Branch.
To look at it from a practical perspective, an executive branch staff that knew every single word would be parsed in the future would be an executive branch terrified to make any decisions at all. It wouldn’t help solve situations like this one, and it would instead lead to a government even more prone to inaction in times of crisis, actually raising the likelihood of catastrophic failures.
***But don’t screw around with executive privilege. It exists for a reason.
Thoughts? I am sensitive to the argument, and argued all along that the administration should not have to turn over who they met with confidentially regarding the development of the energy bill. This doesn’t seem to be the same, for whatever reason.
Paddy O'Shea
Bush stiffed New York on billions of dollars worth of the aid he promised just after 9/11. So why would anybody believe he wouldn’t do the same to New Orleans?
Once the photo-op is over and he’s gotten whatever politocal advantage he believes is to be had, Bush cuts and runs.
DJAnyReason
Mayhap, John, worrying about how the Dems will spin the documents isn’t the full, or even primary, reason why W is caliming privelege?
Paddy O'Shea
John always has to include in his revelations some kind of disingenuous inference about Democrats.
It is why he is in my book as being just another rightwing Republican blog-hack hawking the same talking points as Rush, Bill, Anne, G Gordon, Sean and the rest of the nuts.
Davebo
Shorter Cole..
Or shorter still… “The administrations refusal to cough up the damning evidence of it’s malfeasance is what keeps me squarely in the Republican camp.”
Pb
Er. Fortunately, no, I don’t. Was he an out-of-power Democrat, perchance? Didn’t think so. I could say the same thing about in-power political parties and corruption, but I wouldn’t use Abramoff as an example of how the Dems were (or will be) corrupt. Please.
Say it with me now–we can forgive Iraq’s debt, (attempt to) fund their reconstruction, and literally ship tons of money by plane to Iraq–billions of dollars–only to have it disappear in a haze of graft, but we can’t provide for our own in a time of crisis. This is the antithesis of what a government is supposed to do.
EdT
And Mr. Cole STILL will vote for them because, of course, “the Dems are worse.”
Jazz
Am I the only one not seeing what the above commentors seem to be getting from this post? It sounds to me like John is simply acknowleging that the Dems will obviously use anything in the documents that makes the Bush administration (and therefore, Bush himself) look bad for political advantage, (and let’s face it, either party would do that) but that such use is not sufficient reason to keep the documents secret if it may lead to fixing the problem and not having it repeated next storm season. It’s certainly *possible* that DJAnyReason is correct and there’s something in there which could merit executive priveledge for valid reasons, but it’s damned hard to picture what that could be, assuming everything was done legally (if incompetently in many areas) and on the up and up.
Lacking any sort of White House response, it certainly does leave us wondering if it’s only being held back to avoic political embrassment to the detriment of FEMA and any future potential victims.
John Cole
Thanks for being able to read, Jazz.
The rest of you, starting with Paddy, can go here.
Hoodlumman
I yearn for the day where I have such dedicated readers that I can tell them to ‘fuck off’ and they still come back for more.
That’s not a slight at you, John. That comment is as sincere as it can possibly be.
Pb
Jazz,
I understand the point he was trying to make, and if he doesn’t wish to undermine it, he can find a real example to back it up. Citing Republican behavior during the Clinton witch-hunt as evidence of how the Democrats will hypothetically behave is simply unhinged.
TBone
Disaster preparedness policies might have to deal with a more sinister disaster than a hurricane one day. Perhaps the Fed would not like to make our Nation’s sensitive contingency plans available to would-be invaders. Ever thought of that? (I suggest you do some research on this before you comment on my tinfoil hat ;)
Additionally, Louisiana was a sovereign State the last time I looked. Don’t they have a government that collects taxes? Show me in the Constitution where the Fed is required to give them money.
Maybe the Governor should have been savvy enough to realize that his State is on the Gulf of Mexico, and planned accordingly. He might have said, “Let’s see…we have a major city that’s seven feet below sea level…hmmm…we will definitely have a flooding problem, so perhaps we should plan for that contingency.” The same could be said for the “Chocolate City” Mayor. Was it the Fed’s fault that the hurricane “man” was trying to keep him down?
LITBMueller
I doubt that the Administration would be retarded enough to write down anything during the Katrina Distaster that would be incredibly damning, especially since they had already gotten burned by Fitzgerald on the whole Plame investigation (specifically, Rove’s email to Hadley).
What this is is a symptom of a bigger problem: this Administration has alaways treated such “internal communication” as super double secret (ex.: the Cheney oil meeting docs). And, this secrecy is a symptom of an even bigger problem: the Administration considers the Executive to be the superior branch of the government. Such interference by Little Congress will not be tolerated!
In other words, this is the Unitary Executive Theory in action.
Davebo
Well, if you think in purely political terms you would be correct. But there is a whole other downside that has absolutely nothing to do with politics that apparantly both you and John have missed.
Mainly that the cover up is directly related to a pathetic FEMA response, that was directly caused by the president appointing wholly unqualified personell to positions of great responsibility.
Now certainly, there will be political consequences if this fact is once again put before the public through the release of these documents. But that’s just a by product, even if the only product John would like to point out.
The “main” result would hopefully be the american public sending an extremely strong message to the president that he should stop the practice of cronyism and re-evaluate those he appointed that are still in positions of responsibility.
That isn’t a political issue, but it should be the main issue here. And we don’t need a massive investigation into what went wrong with Katrina, we know exactly what went wrong. The president decided that rewarding friends of top fundraisers with plum federal positions was his priority.
But this is just ignorant.
Based on the fantasy that any distortion at all would be necessary.
But hey, fuck me right John?
Marcus Wellby
Do you feel the same about Florida? Let’s hope nothing happens in your state, I would wager you’d be on that fed teet faster than I could say “gimmee gimmee”.
John Cole
Davebo- All I have said is that I know the Democrats will exagerate the results, as all opposition parties do, but there is no excuse for not releasing this information.
And you have had a shit fit. So yes, GFY. I am sorry I do not the Daily Kos or Josh Marshall and you have to be burdened by my right-wing fascist views.
Marcus Wellby
Not to mention your hate crimes. Hate crimes!
Pb
TBone,
It’s in there, starting with the Preamble: “insure domestic tranquility” … “promote the general welfare”. See also, Article I, Clause 3, and the relevant laws that pertain to it regarding commerce and flood control.
Davebo
John
I’ve had a shit fit?
Well, all I noticed from my original post was me pointing out you have repeatedly voted for these guys.
If that qualifies as a shit fit to you I’d say that’s more a reflection of your own deep internal struggles dude.
Good luck with them.
demimondian
That dog won’t hunt, Tbone, and you know it. It’s a nice talking point to blame Louisiana, but disaster response is a part of national defence, which is a federal responsibility.
Blue Neponset
The Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time. I am sure they will honestly and fairly examine the evidence and then present it in the worst possible light for the Bush admin. If Bush is too chickenshit to defend his actions re: Katrina he doesn’t deserve to sit in the same office that Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln, or even Reagan did.
Mr Furious
Branch? The White House is the fucking trunk. And they’ll nourish the other branches with water when they see fit.
Here’s an idea, why doesn’t the White House just release on a weekly basis everything it doesn’t think is protected by Executive Privilege… it should consist of a few takeout menus, waiting room magazines and memos on the personal virues of recycling.
Assholes.
Marcus Wellby
Sorry Mr. F. — but it would most likely be “memos on the personal virues of not recycling”
Mr Furious
Yeah, the port at the mouth of the fucking Mississippi River is a local issue. They’re on their own. Idiot.
Confederate Yankee
A simple question: What precedent is there for turning over confidential executive branch documents under this and earlier administrations?
While I don’t have time to look at the moment, I’d be willing to bet that preceding Presidents (Democrat and Republican) also maintained that this kind of communication must be held private to allow the function of the performance of the Executive Branch.
To look at it from a practical perspective, an executive branch staff that knew every single word would be parsed in the future would be an executive branch terrified to make any decisions at all. It wouldn’t help solve situations like this one, and it would instead lead to a government even more prone to inaction in times of crisis, actually raising the likelihood of catastrophic failures.
Quite frankly, going after Bush for a situation hundreds of years in the making is idiotic. Go after the Corps of Engineers for not realizing that the levee system is accelerating the destruction of the Mississippi Delta. Go after a corrupt levee board that had primary oversight of these structures. Go after a corrupt Louisiana government system that allowed subcontractors to build a substandard levee system. By all means, go after Bush for appointing an incompetent tool like Michael Brown to run FEMA.
But don’t screw around with executive privilege. It exists for a reason.
DJ Any Reason
Just to clarify, since it seems my post started up the “JOhn is a shill” storm – my intent wasn’t to accuse him of anything, merely to attempt some sort of dialogue on whether there might be other reasons (theories of executive power, actual real embarassment from the docs, etc.) that would be driving the Bush policy – in my mind, a likely scenerio.
Just so I’m on record as to my intents…
Mr Furious
I’m now basking in the unintended irony of the White House sending out paper memos to announce that recycling is a personal virtue, and not required for WH employees, and picturing every one of them then crumpling it up and throwing it in the regular trash.
demimondian
Try US v Nixon as a start.
The Other Steve
That’s bizarre. You’d think that the Republicans would support this.
Well, at least the bailing out of the mortgage lenders. I can understand why they wouldn’t want to bail out homeowners, as they’d just go and spend the money on drugs, but the mortgage lenders need the money.
Jazz
I’m sorry, but executive priveledge is one of those things which partisan political observers will always look at through a lens colored by whether their party is in power or is the minority and out of office. When “your party” is in office, executive priveledge is sacrosanct and it would be dangerous to reveal the inner workings of the oval office. It would also be convenient to avoiding any political embarassments. When the “other party” is in power, then any failure to disclose is treasonous to the country. Bah, I say.
A certain amount of executive previledge, when pertaining to legitimate matters of national security is important. For domestic issues like this and others, there’s nothing wrong with a large degree of transparency in our elected officials’ activities, and it makes for a healthier society and greater public trust in the government.
Sorry, but that’s a complete copout. When you run for the highesst office in the land (and this includes anyone who willingly goes to work as part of the administration) you go into it knowing that every single thing you do, every word you say, every document with which you come in contact, will come under intense public scrutiny, and that scrutiny will be will ill intent when it comes to your political opponents. If you can’t take the heat of having your decisions, actions and statements examined and criticized, you probably shouldn’t run for high office.
The Other Steve
Corporations have to hand over these records when they are being investigated. So do individuals.
I understand what you’re saying, but my gut tells me there’s something that they are hiding. Like a memo that says “This is good, we can bid out the reconstruction project to our buddy Bubba down in Biloxi. He gave us $200k for the reelection, it’d be nice to pay him back a favor.”
Lines
Don’t touch executive privaledge? Fine, then explain where that kind of power stops? Explain how you can have a transparent government with the capability to hide anything and everything.
Take your executive privaledge and shove it. I’d prefer that the Presidential powers be reduced, whether there be a Democrat, a Republican or a friggin Whig in the White House.
Somehow I have the feeling you guys are screaming Executive Privaledge at this point so now more embarassing situations arise before the 2006 elections. Get over it and get some balls.
DougJ
Will Sean Penn release videotape of his “rescues” of New Orleans natives? Will Al Gore release the list of passengers on his boondoggle flight to save fat cat Democratic donors? Will Aaron Broussard release tapes of his conversations with his assistant whose mother “died” in the nursing home? Until they do, I see no reason why Bush should release his conversations with Michael Brown.
Davebo
Also, why the turnaround? Originally the White House was going to release the documents yesterday.
Why the change of heart? Did Abu Al just remember to tell them they could invoke executive priviledge?
Kirk Spencer
Confidential papers? What confidential papers?
OK, let’s start with brass tacks. The president is not my boss. I’m his. I am a voting member of the employment committee that determines whether he gets and keeps the job. As part of evaluating his performance I should have access to the majority of the work of both him and his subordinates, most of whom (at least in the upper levels of the organization) he was given the right to select.
When there is a screw-up, I especially want to see what happened and why.
There will be exceptions to this access. But “exception” is not the norm. And I get to know the reason why it’s not being provided as well, not just a “I decided you didn’t need it.”
Now in contrast, I’ll point out that the state of Louisiana has made EVERY document it has related to the disaster available for public perusal. Yes, every stupid decision – and smart or otherwise attempt to recover from said decision – is available. It only makes this decision at the national level look worse in comparison.
Lines
New turn in the Saddam trial:
Steve
Executive privilege is intended to protect POLICY discussions within the Executive Branch, not to throw a huge veil of secrecy over every action the Executive Branch takes.
For example, if Congress demanded to know the reasons why Michael Brown was nominated for his position, that would be off-limits. The President doesn’t have to explain his decisions.
But when you’re talking about the actual functioning of the government, that has nothing to do with executive privilege. The idea that FEMA employees will be sitting at their desks in a crisis, paralyzed into inaction by thinking “gee, if I say anything to anyone, I might be held accountable for it!” is just ludicrous. All of us, every day, are subject to being held accountable for anything we say or do. Yet somehow we manage to still live our lives.
Katrina was a monumental fuck-up and there’s no getting around it. And anyone who makes the argument “sorry, you’re not allowed to investigate how we fucked it up, because you might induce us to fuck it up even worse next time” is nothing but a 100% apologist.
Pooh
Two examples spring immediately to mind:
Nixon v. U.S.
Jones v. Clinton
The Courts hada good laugh about broadly construing “executive priviledge” in those cases. Try again.
Barbar
Should people have the right to vote? Think of it this way: it’s definitely possible for voters to be irresponsible and remove leaders who make wise but unpopular decisions. So maybe people shouldn’t be able to vote.
Food for thought, at least. Any ideas?
DougJ
Especially now that all of our phones are being tapped. Isn’t it ironic that the administration that thinks it has the right to listen to everything we say refuses to let us know about anything they say? This White House is about as transparent as a one-way mirror.
DougJ
That’s the obvious next step. And with Diebold machines in some states, we’re already part of the way there.
John
Although I utterly disagree with this line of reasoning with respect to executive priviledge, I’ll assume it for the sake of argument.
I would hope that you would agree that there has to be some limit on executive priviledge, even if you feel that this situation doesn’t reach it. The Chief Executive is, after all, a President, not a King. So, where is that limit?
Does it trigger with a certain amount of life lost?
Does it trigger with a certain amount of monetary damage?
Does it trigger with intent or actor?
What criteria do you, personally, use to make this determination? (Honest question, not being snarky.)
The reason I don’t buy your argument above is this: We do not know what happened and why in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I know some of it from the media, some of it from first-hand accounts, and some of it from my own lying eyes (and damp feet). I have family by marriage who lost everything. They want answers. I want answers.
We now have a Congressional inquiry into the events of the aftermath. An inquiry, however, is useless when the investigation has no facts, no data, and no way to get them when the responsible parties claim “Executive Priviledge”.
The truth needs to come out about this, if only so we can FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO IT. We lost 3000 Americans on 9/11, and were told we need to roll back our civil liberties to keep us safe. Well, we’ve lost 3000 Americans from Katrina, and I will be damned to Hell and back before I let this Administration suddenly claim, “We don’t have to tell you squat, we’ll keep you safe.” Without any knowledge of why the response was so poor, we are unable to fix it.
Transparency is not just a good idea, it is essential for a functioning democracy.
Otto Man
I can’t believe we as a country are having this discussion when U.S. v. Nixon made the limits on executive privilege completely clear thirty years ago.
In a unanimous decision, the Burger Court accepted the concept in general, but asserted that it wasn’t an absolute right and that the executive branch had to turn over documents when requested by other branches. They said private conversations weren’t exempt. The idea that official actions and communications might be exempt is ludicrous.
demimondian
Speak for yourself. My phone isn’t being tapped!
I know, because I asked my wife if it was during a call just the other day and a voice I didn’t know said “Why would we bother to tap your phone?”
TBone
demimondian said:
Maybe it’s a federal responsibility in the socialist country you’re from (one that spells “defense” with a “c”) but it’s not in mine. (And I don’t care how the founders spelled it, it’s spelled with an “s” now…hehe) and….“Provide for the common defense…” refers to the military, NOT natural disasters.
Additionally Pb said:
– …promote the general welfare…” perhaps, but…Article I, Clause 3? Are you referring to the one concerning “commerce power”? This?
”It cannot properly be said that the constitutional power of the United States over its waters is limited to control for navigation. . . . That authority is as broad as the needs of commerce. . . . Flood protection, watershed development, recovery of the cost of improvements through utilization of power are likewise parts of commerce control.”
Nowhere in there does it say that the Federal government is supposed to give money to the States for floods. It gives the Fed the broad authority to conduct activities on waterways vis-a-vis commerce, which includes the right to conduct flood control in order to facilitate commerce.
Ya’ll need to get your facts straight. You Libs need to come correct if you want to argue the Constitution with TBone, yo!
Jazz
I’m sorry, but I believe that the currrent, correct Blogtopia Standards for Posting (BSP) indicate that you should use, “A hearty Dick Cheney Go F*** Yourself“
Otto Man
If it’s not a federal responsibility, then why was Bush so hands-on when hurricanes struck Florida in 2004? The president went there himself and even handed out water bottles to refugees himself.
I guess it’s only a federal responsibility when it’s a swing state in an election year.
Otto Man
And you need to learn how to spell “y’all.” It’s a contraction for “you all.”
Lines
Ah, TBone is a strict Constitutionalist, I see.
So America should get rid of Social Security, it should allow gay’s to marry and so on so forth.
Tbone, you’re nothing but a literalist asshole with little to say but a ton to use as bait. Congratulations on the sun coming up this morning.
KC
I’m pissed because my big post on executive privilege just went to shit. Oh well, here’s a summary.
I’m no expert on executive privilege, but I just finished a master’s thesis on California’s governors’ records and had to read everything I could on executive privilege for it. Basically, the executive privilege we’re talking about in this case, I think, is the deliberative process privilege. Essentially, anything “nonfactual”–nonpublished or designed to create policy–that is used in president-adviser communications is off limits. The only way one can get to this type of stuff is through a FOIA request to an executive agency, assuming that agency was involved in the decision making process at some level or had materials related to it. Even then, you would not get the documents you wanted, but just hints at what those other documents were.
Most importantly, internal White House documents are covered by the Presidential Records Act. The PRA, of course, was largely gutted by executive fiat in November of 2001. Historians will probably look at that action as the first in a long line of actions by this president wherein the president actually made law rather than enforce it. Either way, even if the PRA was still operable in its former form, many of the deliberative process documents of this president would not be available for public purview until after the required twelve year post presidency witholding period (many nondefense related documents are required to be disclosed through FOIA requests after six years).
As for Congress, unless they have the will to put up a fight, they’ll never see these communications. My feeling is Republicans will once again allow this president to set a precedent that at some future point they’ll regret. What happens usually is that the president and Congress work something out in order to get testimony/documents. For example, Congress might agree to take testimony in executive session, away from public eyes. However, the current Congress has been less than enthusiastic about overseeing the enforcement of disclosure laws of late. Honestly, I think my former Congressman, Doug Ose (R-CA), was the last to hold a heavy hearing on executive disclosure (it was on Bush’s PRA “overhaul”).
Bottom line, unless these documents are leaked to the press or Congress gets real serious about them, we won’t see them.
Davebo
“Maybe it’s a federal responsibility in the socialist country you’re from (one that spells “defense” with a “c”) but it’s not in mine.”
It’s a federal resonsibility in the real world. And became a federal responsibility the moment two days before the storm when the governor formally requested federal assistance.
At that point, under the guidelines passed in the legislation that created the Dept. of Homeland Security, it became the feds responsibility.
So irony of ironies, not only are you totally wrong about the facts, but the facts are what they are because of action taken by this administration which you are presumably defending..
EL
As someone whose profession intersects with disaster preparedness, those policies and plans are usually quite available; the disaster authorities wish they were better known, in fact.
FEMA has them online (caveat: I last checked in October 2005) under National Incident Management System. Additionally, you have to disseminate the plans in order to be sure that the large groups of support personnel will know, understand, and follow them. There are books of them (not classified), large public drills reported on by the media, etc. The practice “Hurricane Pam” exercise was not, AFAICT, classified. I understand it could be different with a military attack issue, but clearly this isn’t.
In any case, the books of plans are already unclassified. And the issue isn’t what the plans were, so much as why they were inadequate and/or followed so poorly.
In the disaster profession, good practice dictates that drills and actual events are followed by a “post-mortem,” an after-event examination: what went right, what went wrong, what can be improved for next time. The administration is in effect refusing to allow their part of the examination, preventing possible lessons for a better response next time.
Disaster professionals would call this poor policy, even negligence. It scares the heck our of me, because if we can’t figure out how to improve the government response from the top, it’s going to happen again.
TBone
Hey Lines,
It’s a matter of Law. I’m sure you’re all for the Law when it comes to making your point, but when it doesn’t fit your argument can just make it up, right? Or say the lie loud enough and perhaps the sheep will believe you instead of researching the facts.
Congratulations on being a propagandizing relativist. Herr Goebbels would be proud.
Pooh
And Godwin! Tbone loses.
Otto Man
Either that’s Doug J, or someone’s escaped from a mental institution.
Pb
TBone,
Why don’t you explain to me how reconstructing the gulf coast *doesn’t* have to do with commerce. While you’re at it, also explain–as Mr. Furious brought up–how the largest port in the world and its surrounding infrastructure doesn’t have to do with commerce. Or, in cases of extreme devastation like this one, national security and foreign trade as well.
After that, we can discuss what ‘compassionate conservatism’ means in this instance. Something akin to ‘jumbo shrimp’, I expect (which also pertains to commerce in this instance :)).
Lines
yes, and I’m done feeding the troll, thanks for losing with little to no grace, Tbone.
LITBMueller
Hey, if y’all ;) want to get REALLY frightened about how far this Administration guards its secrets, and how little they are willing to provide Congress with info, just type this nifty little phrase into Google: “constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch”
You’ll come up with a whole slew of Presidential Signing Statement where the phrase is intentionally used to basically negate reporting requirements included in legislation passed by Congress. Here’s an example:
That’s not all that Bush has done with that nifty phrase. He wields it like some sort of line item veto power he was never assigned.
Geoff
Here’s my 2 cents. Even if you are fully prepared to concede that executive privilege applies to these documents, I think it’s still a stupid move on the part of the administration to withold them. Not releasing them leaves the distinct impression that they are being retained to avoid disclosing poor performance (and since Katrina already highlighted the administration’s poor performanace in many people’s mind, this probably will make most people think the information contained in these docs is even MORE damaging, and potentially malicious – *even if it’s not*).
So the question for me isn’t, “does executive privilege apply here?”, it’s “is the administration so unwilling to waive a little privilege (as it has the prerogative to do) that it will risk incurring the nation’s displeasure on this topic again?”
Pb
EL,
Satire is dead, and Michael Brown is an emergency preparedness consultant.
Barbar
Did Tbone remember to point out that under a strict interpretation of the constitution, Louisiana wouldn’t even be part of the United States? Eat that, commie Nazi liberals!
KC
John wrote:
Yes, because it’s not the same. The courts have ruled on appropriate uses of executive privilege and basically said that protecting the president from embarrassment is not included in the deal. I don’t feel like listing case law here, but see William Jefferson Clinton on http://www.findlaw.org and you’ll get the picture.
TBone
Davebo,
Perhaps you referred to: TITLE V-EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE SEC. 501., UNDER SECRETARY FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE.
In assisting the Secretary with the responsibilities specified in section 101(b)(2)(D), the primary responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response shall include-
[…]
(4) aiding the recovery from terrorist attacks and major disasters;
That’s nice and all, but if you read further in SEC. 505, CONDUCT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH-RELATED ACTIVITIES it defines the “aid”:
(a) Except as the President may otherwise direct, the Secretary shall carry out the following responsibilities through the Department of Health and Human Services (including the Public Health Service), under agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and may (TBone Comment: note the word “may” does not mean “must”) transfer funds to him in connection with such agreements:
[…]
(2) all public health-related activities being carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services on the effective date of this Act (other than activities under functions transferred by this Act to the Department) to assist State and local government personnel, agencies, or authorities, non-Federal public and private health care facilities and providers, and public and non-profit health and educational facilities, to plan, prepare for, prevent, identify, and respond to biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear events and public health emergencies, by means including direct services, technical assistance, communications and surveillance, education and training activities, and grants. [Emphasis Mine]
Think what you would like guys. The President is NOT compelled to give billions of dollars of my tax money to a State that had its head so far up its ass that it needed a glass stomach to see where it was going. He may slip them some cash to ensure there is proper health, and that commerce is maintained, but is he really responsible to bail out insurance and mortgage companies? Really? Show me the law if you have a snappy response…otherwise keep your wise cracks to yourself. ;)
Paddy O'Shea
Looks like the White House Orwellian Task Force have packed Shrub’s little noggin full of some new and exciting terminology.
Righties to will be expected to immediately ingest and endlessly regurgitate upon demand.
Bush attempts to rename domestic spying.
Looks like the politically correct term is now “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11018747/
Otto Man
Wow, how much is your gross income then?
Your evidence only shows that the president has the discretion to decide when to get the federal government involved. Again, he seems to think a mid-level hurricane in 2004 Florida requires his personal involvement, but a massive one in 2005 Louisiana doesn’t. Guess that just makes him a dick.
Anyway, I’m done dealing with TBone-DougJ. The orderlies will be by to reclaim him soon anyway.
Perry Como
TBone is correct. The Federal government has absolutely no business giving money to a major port city in the US that resides at the mouth of the largest river in the US and conducted massive amounts of shipping. The Federal government has absolutely no interest in the refining facilities that were destroyed nor the oil wells offshore. If Katrina was such a big deal, then why aren’t our energy prices skyrocketing?
Freakin’ commies.
TBone
A little hypocritical of you Paddy, as I see the words “domestic spying” roll easily off your lips. I guess you must have got your terminology from the paranoia chapter in your Abnormal Psychology textbook, since there is no proof that any of that occurred illegally.
What is with you Liberals? Is there nothing but mindless robots on your side of the fence? You people are so blinded by your divisive ideology that you invent scandal where there is none, or blindly repeat the trumped-up mantras your masters feed you. How is it possible for so many of you to be so easily manipulated?
Mr Furious
Yeah, I’d stand pat with, “You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie.”
It could very well be a staggering LACK of action/conversation/documents that the White House is afraid of as much as any actual content. Exposure of their doing jack shit is just as bad.
The Other Steve
Please ignore TBone. He’s obviously a moonbat of some sort who can’t be reasoned with.
Pb
TBone,
Insurance and mortgage bailouts are yet another region of the law, and one which our government loves to engage in (at least if you’re a big corporation, or a friendly one, or both). I’m more interested in the social insurance aspects of it, though, and it’s interesting to note that the potential amounts involved are comparable to those missing or lost due to the Iraq (non-)reconstruction program. Except that, you know, it’s for our own people.
moflicky
or will Rep. William Jefferson (D) Louisiana release the details on why he tied up the national guard to retrieve his laptop during the height of the rescue effort?
The Other Steve
Geoff wrote:
In a reasonable world you’d be right. Even in a court of law, you’d definately be right. But we are not talking reasonable or the law. We’re talking politics.
The biggest mistake that Bill Clinton made was allowing Whitewater to be investigated. His attitude at the time was “There’s nothing there to hide, have at it.” Again, in a reasonable world the people investigating would have realized that and then been shamed into admitting they were mistaken.
But that’s not how it worked, did it? By allowing the investigation, the President showed weakness. When there was nothing there, they went investigating something else, and then something else and then something else. The whole time Clinton did the right thing in saying “There’s nothing here, have at it.”
But it weakened him tremendously, and he spent a great deal of his time dealing with this bullshit.
You know why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon? Because he was spending 2-3 hours a day dealing with it, and that doesn’t even include all the staff time being spent on the issue. Meanwhile all sorts of other important issues were happening. He pardoned him, just to get it to go away so he could focus on other things.
So I can see a bit of what the Bushies are doing here, and I’m not entirely sure I don’t disagree.
The only thing they better be aware of… When President Democrat comes in in 2009. We’re going to be holding this executive privilege doctrine above the Republicans heads and when they try to investigate her pet dog we’re going to say “Go fuck yourself.”
As long as the Republicans remember that, I’m ok with them winning this argument.
The Other Steve
Geoff wrote:
In a reasonable world you’d be right. Even in a court of law, you’d definately be right. But we are not talking reasonable or the law. We’re talking politics.
The biggest mistake that Bill Clinton made was allowing Whitewater to be investigated. His attitude at the time was “There’s nothing there to hide, have at it.” Again, in a reasonable world the people investigating would have realized that and then been shamed into admitting they were mistaken.
But that’s not how it worked, did it? By allowing the investigation, the President showed weakness. When there was nothing there, they went investigating something else, and then something else and then something else. The whole time Clinton did the right thing in saying “There’s nothing here, have at it.”
But it weakened him tremendously, and he spent a great deal of his time dealing with this bullshit.
You know why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon? Because he was spending 2-3 hours a day dealing with it, and that doesn’t even include all the staff time being spent on the issue. Meanwhile all sorts of other important issues were happening. He pardoned him, just to get it to go away so he could focus on other things.
So I can see a bit of what the Bushies are doing here, and I’m not entirely sure I don’t disagree.
The only thing they better be aware of… When President Democrat comes in in 2009. We’re going to be holding this executive privilege doctrine above the Republicans heads and when they try to investigate her pet dog we’re going to say “Go fuck yourself.”
As long as the Republicans remember that, I’m ok with them winning this argument.
TBone
Perry Como,
I didn’t say the Fed has no legitimate interest in helping Louisiana; it certainly does. The point is that the Fed has no statutory obligation to give massive handouts just because a bunch of angry liberals say so. The State of Louisiana bears a significant responsibility in ensuring its own welfare. I’m sure the Fed has provided significant aid in various ways outlined in the legislation I already referenced above (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) in order to help Louisiana thus far. Why aren’t you talking about that?
You guys love to talk about the evils of a powerful government when it comes to protecting the Homeland from terrorists, but you have no problem encouraging the government when it comes to holding out your hand for money.
Once again, another bunch of trash promulgated by Leftists in order to smear the administration.
The Other Steve
I thought Rep. Jefferson was going to prison for bribery?
And no, I don’t know why my other post got posted twice.
Steve
I don’t get the point my fellow Steve is making. Sure, it might be spectacularly good political strategy for Bush to withhold these documents. Does that have anything to do with whether it is right, or legal?
Setting a precedent that the Executive can stonewall the investigation of a major fuck-up is bad for the country – even if it might help in forestalling some bullshit investigation of a different President down the road.
The Other Steve
Of course none of this applies when it’s the state TBone lives in.
Just so we’re all aware of that.
I’ve been through state disasters before(and I live in the midwest where they are few and far between), and I heard the same comments then, and it’s always some jackass from California or Florida making them.
Go take your moonbat “I got mine, screw everybody else” crap and shove it up your fat Limbaugh ass.
The Other Steve
I guess the point… It’s neither right nor legal.
But it’s good politics.
If they release the documents, we’ll be talking about them for months. By refusing to release them the issue goes away by next week.
TBone
Hey The Other Steve,
Maybe…you can kiss my ass. I have been trying to debunk the argument you clowns are trying to promulgate that the Fed is legally obligated to bail out Louisiana. It’s not.
Now as far as my personal feelings…I do believe the Fed should give assistance to the State for obvious reasons. I just resent a bunch of crying little weasels (like you) arguing from a strictly emotional point of view. Of course people need assistance. Of course it is good and nice and necessary to help the citizens of LA. But for once can all you little sniveling asshats just simmer down for a while and quit wailing? Oh NO Gulliver, we’ll never make it!! You all sound like a bunch of spoiled, pathetic brats. Always wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth for you guys. No wonder you won’t win any elections in the Red states.
As soon as someone debunks your flawed arguments, you completely ignore it and move quickly on to another accusation or similar slick-willyism. You clowns are hilarious.
Pooh
Tbone
I don’t think that word mean what you think it means. You’ve presented rebuttal ‘evidence’. Not the same thing as a ‘debunking’. BTW, I can see from your tongue that the flavor of the day is lime.
EL
Tbone,
I don’t care for ad hominem attacks, so I’ll simply point out you haven’t responded to my earlier post, which addresses your post on disaster preparedness and planning.
TBone
Pooh,
Thanks for the correction.
Maybe I didn’t strip or divest them of anything, huh? :)
TBone
EL,
All I can say on that one is that “disaster response” techniques, tactics, and procedures are not exclusive to natural disasters. The same responses would be used during a catastrophic attack on the Homeland. Perhaps information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the Fed’s disaster response during real-world natural disasters might be considered something akin to a critical infrastructure in the post 9/11 world. This is just a thought, not a fact.
Certainly the greater part of disaster preparedness doctrine has to be unclassified, otherwise all the State and Local agencies could not communicate or operate jointly; but perhaps certain communications or methodologies might be considered sensitive (or even classified) if one believes a terrorist or foreign power might use that information to take advantage of us.
This is all speculation on my part. I do not fully understand doctrine on disaster issues even though I read the PDD.
Steve
Who the fuck said the federal government is LEGALLY obligated to save New Orleans? This entire issue started as a strawman posted by TBone,
and he has just been ranting from there.
No, there is no statute or constitutional provision that I am aware of which requires the federal government to lift a finger to help. On the other hand, most people – and it’s a free country, so TBone has the right to not count himself among them – do think it’s a pretty important moral obligation, and that on the list of reasons why we have a big national government and pay taxes to them, saving a major American city from being destroyed is pretty high up there.
I imagine TBone considers himself a true conservative, and I do love it when true conservatives show their true colors. I encourage you to run on the “we have no legal obligation to help you in the event of a disaster” platform in ’08, rather than hiding behind these codewords like “shrinking government.” Since a majority of the electorate is conservative, or so we’re told, I’m sure they will all love you for it.
demimondian
Well, Tbone, EL does, and he answered you in detail. As to federal responsibility in regard to disaster preparedness, there is a slough of statutory responsibility for public safety and public rescue which kicks in when a governor makes a request for a national disaster and federalizes responsibility for the National Guard.
I hope you won’t forget that this is all about that fact that Governor Blanco made exactly such a request two days before the storm hit, and no action was taken by the president in response? I know, you’re a good Republican, and you don’t care about laws except when they control other people…but some of us aren’t that stupid.
Davebo
Quite possibly the silliest Balloon Juice comment yet!
Of all the odd theories offered as to why Ford pardoned Nixon (less than one month after Nixon resigned mind you) this is probably the cutest!
cdj
{shrug} Let them cite executive privilege if they want to. And you guys can support them if you want to. You and they know perfectly well that they had an incompetent crew deliver a performance below what we would expect even of them.
You and I and they know that gw has been lying about everything about Katrina from the get-go. You guys are fine with your party lying, cheating, and stealing, all so that “your party”, the party that screws YOU over, can stay in power.
{shrug} I guess you showed us liberals, who have grad degrees and make $80k+/year. Rock on. At least gays can’t get married, eh?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008072.php
Pb
Steve,
I would say that legally and morally the government has a responsibility to provide for and answer to their citizens and act in the best interests of the nation. If TBone disagrees, then I suppose he can continue to vote for irresponsible arrogance and callous disregard–it’s a free country.
JP
For now.
rilkefan
That’s about one whole work-week for Bush.
LITBMueller
Heh heh….I the Culture of Life in action, I see! :)