Bush supporters' aftermath thread

That first one deserves its own thread, blatham.

Well, Nimh, I would have gone with a wider angle lens and photoshopped little Adolph moustaches onto the faces of the Merkel supporters.

But it is nice to see a political meeting which doesn't have armed guards at the doors keeping out folks who won't sign an agreement to kiss the ass of George Bush.

Re: the picture:

I both identify and think it's dangerous. I'm hoping that's where we're going, as a country -- "Change! Now!" -- but am a bit worried about who we would change TO. I do think that's important, more than change for its own sake.

FD

It probably does. There are two long lists now:

1) experienced and highly qualified folks from within the administration/government who have spoken out against the administration's mis-steps, politically motivated deceits and coverups, etc who have been removed and/or smeared for the sin of disloyalty

2) inexperienced and unqualified folks who have replaced them simply because they were ideologically attuned ass-kissers

I see that pattern too, and it's part of why I think the government appears so ineffective at every turn. The people who knew what they were doing are gone at all levels, replaced by those with another agenda.

ps...the situation with FEMA executives put in place on the basis of their loyalty to earlier Bush campaigns and fundraising activities was, as we'll recall, mirrored with who filled the ranks of those working in the Green Zone in Iraq.

Blatham


Medal of Freedom receiver Brenner in mind, Blatham?

I just had a brain storm. We need a "World-Class Screw-up" to award to members of the Bush administration and their lackies,

Care to start up with the first award, Blatham?

Should we start this award on a new thread?

BBB

Did anyone read Mr. Krugman in the NYTimes this morning?


September 12, 2005

All the President's Friends
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina revealed to everyone that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which earned universal praise during the Clinton years, is a shell of its former self. The hapless Michael Brown - who is no longer overseeing relief efforts but still heads the agency - has become a symbol of cronyism.

But what we really should be asking is whether FEMA's decline and fall is unique, or part of a larger pattern. What other government functions have been crippled by politicization, cronyism and/or the departure of experienced professionals? How many FEMA's are there?

Unfortunately, it's easy to find other agencies suffering from some version of the FEMA syndrome.

The first example won't surprise you: the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a key role to play in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, but which has seen a major exodus of experienced officials over the past few years. In particular, senior officials have left in protest over what they say is the Bush administration's unwillingness to enforce environmental law.

Yesterday The Independent, the British newspaper, published an interview about the environmental aftermath of Katrina with Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst in the agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, whom one suspects is planning to join the exodus. "The budget has been cut," he said, "and inept political hacks have been put in key positions." That sounds familiar, and given what we've learned over the last two weeks there's no reason to doubt that characterization - or to disregard his warning of an environmental cover-up in progress.

What about the Food and Drug Administration? Serious questions have been raised about the agency's coziness with drug companies, and the agency's top official in charge of women's health issues resigned over the delay in approving Plan B, the morning-after pill, accusing the agency's head of overruling the professional staff on political grounds.

Then there's the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose Republican chairman hired a consultant to identify liberal bias in its programs. The consultant apparently considered any criticism of the administration a sign of liberalism, even if it came from conservatives.

You could say that these are all cases in which the Bush administration hasn't worried about degrading the quality of a government agency because it doesn't really believe in the agency's mission. But you can't say that about my other two examples.

Even a conservative government needs an effective Treasury Department. Yet Treasury, which had high prestige and morale during the Clinton years, has fallen from grace.

The public symbol of that fall is the fact that John Snow, who was obviously picked for his loyalty rather than his qualifications, is still Treasury secretary. Less obvious to the public is the hollowing out of the department's expertise. Many experienced staff members have left since 2000, and a number of key positions are either empty or filled only on an acting basis. "There is no policy," an economist who was leaving the department after 22 years told The Washington Post, back in 2002. "If there are no pipes, why do you need a plumber?" So the best and brightest have been leaving.

And finally, what about the department of Homeland Security itself? FEMA was neglected, some people say, because it was folded into a large agency that was focused on terrorist threats, not natural disasters. But what, exactly, is the department doing to protect us from terrorists?

In 2004 Reuters reported a "steady exodus" of counterterrorism officials, who believed that the war in Iraq had taken precedence over the real terrorist threat. Why, then, should we believe that Homeland Security is being well run?

Let's not forget that the administration's first choice to head the department was Bernard Kerik, a crony of Rudy Giuliani. And Mr. Kerik's nomination would have gone through if enterprising reporters hadn't turned up problems in his background that the F.B.I. somehow missed, just as it somehow didn't turn up the little problems in Michael Brown's résumé. How many lesser Keriks made it into other positions?

The point is that Katrina should serve as a wakeup call, not just about FEMA, but about the executive branch as a whole. Everything I know suggests that it's in a sorry state - that an administration which doesn't treat governing seriously has created two, three, many FEMA's.

Source

FD

Two quotes define and explain precisely what is going on. The first by an aide to Bush, the second by DiIulio of the President's staff...

gotta run for the day...kissing Laura on way out door while checking lunchbox to see if the whiskey is included

The Netherlnd's system (similar the others in Europe) aren't subject to either hurricanes nor tornodos.


It's a system against floods: in 1953, 1,800 Dutch died in a hurricane-force flood (nearly half of the land in The Netherlands is below sea level as you certainly recall - the other part is at sea level).

Thanks to this system, they can go on and dry more land by diking and draining, as they did since hundred of years. (That's the reason of most of those windmills, btw, you see in The Netherlands and north Germany.)

[Germany's system became only better after 1962 February 16th: high tide, a heavy storm flood and strong wind conditions led to the failure of the levee - system, more than 150,000 people impacted, 315 died, mostly in Hamburg.]

Blatham
The Bush administration political agenda pattern is clear. They are a breed of small government fanatics. Part of this pruning of government is to appoint cabinet secretaries who ideologically want to reduce the size and effectiveness of the agencies/departments they are appointed to manage. They are not there to improve service, they are there shrink services to the point of disappearance. In public, they brag about the good job they are doing but they are, in fact, the kiss of death to the people they are supposed to serve.

The only exception to Bush's mandate are those agencies/departments that support their agenda. The military (industrial) complex, corporate interests, land control for private profit, etc.

People are dying, people are losing their homes, people are becoming increasingly poor, people are becoming more ill. In the eyes of these government officials, people are morphing into shapeless blurs not requiring attention to their needs.

If US citizens don't rise up and put an end to this corrupt and obscene administration, those who continue to support it will deserve what they get. Unfortunately, those of us who don't support it will also be harmed unless we get off our butts and get rid of them.

BBB

As a side note, Helmut Schmidt, Hamburg's Innensenator (state secretary of the interior), handled the catastrophy very well. The 1962 flood in Hamburg laid the ground for a brilliant political carreer that should make him chancellor twelve years later. The point here is that when politicians respond competently to disasters, this is unexpected and therefore highly appreciated.

(As a side-sidenote to Walter: Did you notice anyone interviewing Schmidt about this? I didn't -- and he's one of the few talking heads whose perspective I'm actually interested in.)

Re: Blatham


BBB, There's an interesting article in today's San Jose Mercury News Editorial pages by David S. Broder about "Washington's Katrina snafus pale next to its reckless disregard to live within its means." Private experts are forecasting a federal budget deficit this year of $500 billion. In 2002, it was $450 billion; in 2003, $984 billion; in 2004, $800 billion; and this year, the House passed an increase of $781 billion. That totals a stunning $3 trillion in additional debt in four years.

What this administration continues to parrot through the White House Office of Management and Budget, the deficit for this year will decline by $333 billion from $412 billion in 2004. Bush said, "It's a sign that our economy is strong, and it's a sign that our tax relief plan, our pro-growth policies are working."

What they don't say is the cost of the continuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Katrina disaster, and our trade deficit increases, while this administration continues its push to make the tax cuts permanent.

"The runaway budget deficits are compunded by the persistent and growing imbalance in our trrade accounts - jeopardizing the inflow of foreign funds we have used to finance our debt." The men and women who hve steered economic and fiscal policy during the past two decades were expressing their alarm about this situation, one speaker summarized the feelings of the group: "I think it's 1925, he said, and we're headed for 1929."

Everybody feel comfortable? Don't.

C.I.
Thank you for that information. It's good to keep repeating it in an attempt to reach the reality impaired.

BBB

Bush and water.

Storms in the North Sea can be very severe, and coupled with high tides have inundated large areas of Holland and England within living memory.
Consequently our sea defences are built to withstand a storm intensity based on a return frequency of 1 in 1000 years.
Reportedly Louisiana's levees were designed for only 1 in 200 or 1 in 300 years storms, which is a much lesser standard, and is inadequate.

From my online version, a bit smaller :wink:

Thanks, Walter. Too lazy to edit.

CI:

From one non-supporter of Bush to another, I can see why it's fun for you to rain on the Bush supporters' parade. But is it really necessary to spam this thread with a cartoon so large it takes the page forever to load it? And when someone on your side takes the trouble to discretely post the same cartoon in a non-disruptive manner, is it really necessary to not just decline to remove your own disruptive version, but also make a snotty remark about not doing so?

After the 2004 election, when we asked the Republicans to leave the Democrats' bitching and moaning thread (I think that was the name), they left. The least that we can do in return is not to act like boors in a thread made for somebody else.

Needless to say, that is only my opinion.