Posts made by DarthMaximus

CC,

Or just an “evil” way to add to your post count.

Hmm…

Edit:

To Mary (or should I say Jen),

It’s Just part of the evil plot.

Clearly they are one in the same.

I mean seriously TWO girls on an A&A site. Not Bloody likely.

I’m not falling for this Tom Foolery any longer.

:D

EDIT:

Just in case it is not clear, this is ment to be a comedic thread.
Not an oppurtunity to flame Mary or Jen.

:lol:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "

I just noticed your sig. :lol:

So it was a good thing we invaded Iraq.

Or is your sig a joke???

:D No duh. I just didn’t feel like pasting this in, since I already had the wiki link and it did a nice job of summarizing.

Read and enjoy ALL the reasons are there. You, Mary and the others can choose to ignore them if you wish.

How can you guys defend Saddam?

Yeah Mary, the same Saddam where Chirac had a nice French Nuclear Reactor built for him.

Thank goodness the Isreali’s took it out.

We also partnered with Stalin in WW2 another mass murderer. But I’m sure you liked him as well. Communism was a real Boom for them. :roll:

Who gives a sh** why he was taken out? I don’t care if took him out cause he was a Yankees fan. I really don’t care, nor do I care if he and Reagan and the Pope and Mother Teresa all had Christmas dinner together.

And if anyone is eager to “defend” Saddam, it was America, back in the 80’s. Ever seen that picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Or the weapons we supplied Hussein with? He was the same bad guy back then as he was in 2002.

LOL!!! So What!

So you’re happy we finally did the right thing and got that ass out of power.
We corrected a grieveous error. We paid for our mistakes. Why do you defend Saddam now.

So you’re happy we removed him from power. Good to have you on board Mary. :D

_IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
© War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
© RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution._

Becaue you do not agree with it, or choose to focus in on only one reason (wmd) does not make it a lie.

From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:

_The act cited several factors to justify a war:

Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States_

I do not know why some people are so eager to defend Saddam. Who cares why he was removed. It is a good thing he is out of power.

Of Course!
Bush IS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. that is his job. It is laid out in the Constitution.

Of course he tells the army where to go. Ultimately Generals/Admirals/etc advise the Pres and the Pres makes the call, that is what the Commander in Chief does.

Congress Authorized the use of force against Saddam.
But Congress can’t tell the Army what to do, only the Pres can.

I’m breaking my own rule. :D

Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.

I fail to see how.

Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.

And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.

There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.

You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.

It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.

Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.

I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.

Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.

Getting sick of Editting, but this will be my last post on Iraq and War resolutions. As they are off topic.

This is a loink of when the US has had a Dec of War and when it hasn’t. and in the case of no, they list what gave the authority, ie Tonkin Resolution etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Here’s the link for the War in Iraq from the same site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

Again, both the House and Senate voted to give Bush the power.
Take this up with your Senators and Congressmen if you dissapprove, but don’t blame Bush when he clearly got approval from Congress.

As I said this will be my last post on Iraq in this thread, and sorry for any of my derailing, however I had to set the record straight and correct lies when I see them.

Mary,

For the millionth time CONGRESS GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE. Ie, go to war, to commit troops in iraq, to commit troops to enforce UN resolutions. Pick your terms, I don’t care which one you call it, but CONGRESS GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY. If you have a problem you should take it up with your Congressmen.

From OCT 10, 2002

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/

EDIT:

Spelling

Also this is Oct 10 2002 which predates your article, which is why Bush says I commit troops blah blah blah in your article. He IS the Commander in Chief of the US army.

EDIT 2:

I don’t know how or why the moderators still let you post. This is just trolling. It took about 10 seconds to Google some links to prove you wrong yet again.

I think that comment is unnecessary.

It only took me about one second to do a google search and prove YOU WRONG. So are you now a troll?

Ya gotta stop listening to Moore or Franken or any of those other kooks who spew that garbage.

Edit 3

Your piece about the lawyers is an opinion piece. They say argue against, but it is just not the case. I’m guessing this case was thrown out or at the very least went nowhere as we did go to war in March of that year and it was Congress who authorized it and Gave Bush the power to Commit troops.

You can quibble of wording all you want, no it wasn’t an Official Dec of War, however it gave Bush the power to use force/commit troops, etc. I don’t know signs like a Dec of War to me, but we won’t call it that.

On a historical note I don’t believe we have had a Declartion of War in this Country since WW2.

CC,

Jen laid it out pretty good regarding Federal intervention in States.

Yes it is a bit combersome and annoying to say

Pres: We can help
Gov: Good we need help
Gov: We “officially” authorize the use of Fed troops in this state
Pres: Fed troops are now under control of the Gov
Gov: Thank you. Now troops do this, that and the other…

But this is how it works in the US.

The Pres at no time (barring special orders ie Insurrection Act or whatever), can enter a State with Federal troops under the command of the Pres.

I think this is obvious as to why this could lead to HUGE problems.

Any President at any time could then say the smallest little rainstorm or whatever is a disaster and start taking control of States with Federal troops. This is bad.

The whole point of having States is to act as a buffer to the Federal gov’t.

The Gov is always in control of his/her state. Period.
With the exception of the Insurrection Act or I suppose the Gov could reliquish power, but even then it would go to the LT Gov.

Presidents can’t simply order Fed troops and take control of States.

This is the Continuation of the Drudge headline. It linked to a NYTimes Story.

_September 9, 2005
Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop Aid
By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
and THOM SHANKER

This article was reported and written by Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana’s governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush’s senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort.

Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco’s control. The debate was triggered as officials began to realize that Hurricane Katrina exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration’s senior homeland security officials, the hurricane showed the failure of their plan to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated and unable to act quickly until reinforcements arrive on the scene.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Governor Blanco would have resisted surrendering control of the military relief mission as Bush Administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. While troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

“Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?” asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

“I need everything you have got,” Governor Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Tuesday, when New Orleans flooded. In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. “Nobody told me that I had to request that. I thought that I had requested everything they had,” she said. “We were living in a war zone by then.”

The governor illustrated her stance when, overnight Friday, she rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana Guard.

Also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than National Guard soldiers.

By last Wednesday, Pentagon officials said even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours - could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops, which are specially trained and equipped for civilian law enforcement duties. In the end, the flow of thousands of National Guard soldiers, especially military police, was accelerated from other states.

“I was there. I saw what needed to be done,” Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview. “They were the fastest, best-capable, most appropriate force to get there in the time allowed. And that’s what it’s all about.”

But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying that 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg in North Carolina on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.

But the call never came, in part because military officials believed National Guard troops would get there faster and because administration civilians were worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters, administration officials said.

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the director of operations for the military’s Joint Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials in advance of an approaching hurricane.

The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time the hurricane reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and Marines to the scene.

After the hurricane passed New Orleans and the levees broke, flooding the city, it became increasingly evident that disaster response efforts were badly bogged down.

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

The issue of federalizing the response was one of a number of legal issues considered in a flurry of meetings at the Justice Department, the White House and other agencies, administration officials said.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to assist local authorities. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government did possess authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor’s objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, according to administration officials. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Governor Blanco said her state troops were missed. “Over the last year we have had about 5,000 out, at one time,” Governor Blanco said. “They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor.”

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

Homeland Security officials say that the experience with Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation’s plans to handle disaster.

“This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties,” Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested the active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon’s leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans should be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local “first responders,” including civilian police and the National Guard.

At a news conference Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said: “The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood, requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe. And that’s one in which we are using the military, still within the framework of the law, to come in and really handle the evacuation, handle all of the associated elements. And that, of course, frees the National Guard up to do a security mission.”

Mr. McHale, while agreeing with the problem, offered different remedies. “It is foreseeable to envision a catastrophic explosion that would kill virtually every police officer within miles of the attack,” he said. “Therefore we are going to have to reexamine our ability to back-fill first responder capabilities that may be degraded or destroyed during the initial event.”

He continued, “What we now have to look toward is perhaps a regional capability, probably within the civilian sector, that can be deployed to a city when that city’s infrastructure and first responder capability has been destroyed by the event itself.”

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported from Washington, and Eric Lipton from Baton Rouge, La., for this article. David Johnston contributed reporting._

bombs all destroyers

To Haxor…

Yes more power to States.

Yes the State gov’t in LA failed in this case, IMO.
Why? Becasue they looked immediately to Feds to bail them out, without having a plan in the meantime.

But the more power locally the better. The more control you have as a voter.

From Drudge…

WHITE HOUSE MULLED SEIZING RELIEF MISSION // Invoke the Insurrection Act? Bush’s senior advisers debated last week whether the president should seize control of the chaotic hurricane relief mission from the governor so that active-duty combat troops could be sent to enforce order… Developing…

I’m all for getting rid of FEMA.

Infact I’m for getting rid of about 90% of the Federal gov’t.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

Sweeeeeeeet.

When did we get new title thingies?

I like it. 8)

LOL!!!

Hey, it looks like Michael Moore is a member of this site!!!

LOL!!!

So, you support the war in Iraq now.
Good to have you on board.

Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war. Suckers!!!

The Gov of LA did not officially accept Federal aid till well after the storm hit.

It’s funny how some people in New Orleans STILL don’t want to leave.

How was it Bush was suposed to get people out. Some still won’t leave!!!

The Mayor Didn’t get people out, the Gov didn’t get people out, BUT Bush could get these people to leave. :roll: sheeesh.

I have to admit, prior to the storm hitting I was wonder if the media was hyping it too much. And I heard several residents of NO say that while the storm was a CAT 5 they believed it would weaken prior to hitting land and they were going to stay (which is common for hurricanes, as this one hit land a a level of CAT 4).

So, I’m sure the leaders of LA were pondering whether they wanted to be on TV Forcibly removing people and enforcing the Mandatory evacuation that was give a full 24 hrs prior to the storm hitting.

Personally, I think that photo of all the school buses under water is pretty funny, in a sad sort of way.

this is hilarious, since they declared a state of emergency before katrina hit and ask for his help You seem to keep leaving that out.

I think you may be misunderstanding what the declaration of a state of emergency means.

This declaration gives the States more power (more specifically the Governor of whatever state). The Gov gets more power because he is basically “president” of the State. That is why you elect Governors.

All the declaration does is tell the states, hey if you need help our resources are here for you to use, but the STATE must still ask for this help and then dictate how it is used.

Generally it is money to be spent after said disaster.

Forget about Katrina for a sec, and think about FL last year. When FL was pummeled by Hurricanens and a Fed Dis Area was stated, at no time did the Pres run down there and start calling the shots. What it did was give Jeb the power to tell federal officials/troops or whatever to do what he thinks is best for his state.

When earthquakes hit Cali and emergency is declared (say in 89), again the Pres doesn’t ride in, the authority is given by the Fed to the Local gov’t to use Federal resources. This is why we have local governements.

Because an emergency is declared DOES NOT mean a Governor cedes his authority of control of his/her State.

Bush offered federal help but the Gov, but she said she needed 24 hrs to think about the proposal (this was said by the Mayor of NO). Which explains why there was at least a 1 day lag.

Again, I don’t the the Gov officially accepted the help till Wed.

I can’t say this enough, simply declaring emergency does not give any President the power to rule over the effected area in some State and order people around. It gives those local officials more power in a time of crisis to deal with it, by provided Federal resources who now report to the local official in charge. Usually the Governor. This is why we have local gov’t.

Note:
None of this is ment to come off a bad or mean tone. And there is no intention of being mean. Just trying to be informative and emphasize certain things.
I just want to clarify since sometimes it can be hard to tell on a MB. :D