Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-10-2007, 02:43 PM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
FEMA's "circle jerk": Is my reaction "too partisan" or is yours too cynical/apathetic

Remember when Bush fired FEMA director "Brownie", the failed former Arabian Horse competition judge, and college buddy of prior FEMA director and Bush campaign director, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joe_M._Allbaugh">Joe Allbaugh</a> , in the midst of the Katrina disaster, and only hours after Bush declared, "Brownie, yer doin' a heck of a job!" ?

We were assured by the Bush administration that FEMA was "fixed" with the appointment, of new, competent management in possession of actual disaster response experience:

<h3>(Do you think we're being subjected to "more" of all of this because of people who are worried they aren't outraged enough about it happening, or because of people who react to it with a non-reaction, or a well..."government doesn't work", reaction?)</h3>

Two weeks ago, California experienced a wildfire disaster over a wide area and FEMA responded with disaster relief, and arranged a press conference to inform the public of the progress of it's response and it's damage and further risk assessment:

Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3481008.shtml
Just Who Was At That Fake FEMA Briefing?
CBS News Obtains A Photo Of The "Press" Gallery Full Of FEMA Staffers

NEW YORK, Nov. 9, 2007
(CBS/AP) CBS News has obtained this photo of the now infamous fake FEMA press conference held during the California wildfires. The photo, taken by a FEMA employee, is one of the only known photos of the press gallery of that event.

The gallery is not filled with members of the press but with high-level agency employees.

At the podium on the left <h3>is Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, the second in command at FEMA.</h3>

The former director of public affairs at the agency, John "Pat" Philbin <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/10/29/primarysource/entry3428071.shtml">told CBS News last week</a>, <h3>"I am not aware that he knew what was happening and all of sudden staff were asking questions."

Identified in the photo are staff members that Johnson works closely with on a daily basis.</h3>

From left to right: Nathaniel Fogg, Counselor to the Director and Deputy Director; John "Pat" Philbin, former Director of External Affairs; Michael Widomski, Public Affairs Specialist; Eric Heighberger, Special Assistant, Office of the Administrator; Cindy Taylor (in tan suit), Communications Deputy Director; Dan Shulman (red tie), Director of Legislative Affairs; Debbie Wing (curly blond hair), Media Response Liaison; Aaron Walker (back to camera), National Spokesman.
<center><img src="http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2007/11/09/image3480817.jpg"></center>
It was announced Thursday that an internal investigation had found that FEMA's press secretary encouraged, and in some cases instructed, employees to pose as reporters and ask questions at the fake news conference.

At the same time, the investigation, which was conducted by Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke, concluded that officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, did not set out to deceive the public. Knocke blamed bad decision-making and a rush to get out information about wildfires that were raging in southern California.

"Much like in an airline crash or automobile accident that was reconstructed, there were several different points leading up to the press conference where, had a single decision been made differently, the event itself could have been averted," Knocke said Thursday.

Aaron Walker, the FEMA press secretary, has since accepted a job with a public relations firm in Utah. He said Thursday that FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison did not ask him to leave as a result of the incident or the investigation's findings.

On Oct. 23, reporters were given 15 minutes' notice for what turned into a staged question-and-answer briefing with FEMA's deputy administrator about the California fires. <h3> No genuine journalists attended, although they were given a conference call number they could use to listen in but not ask questions. A half-dozen questions were asked at the event by FEMA staff members posing as reporters.</h3>

Since the briefing Philbin - who, at the time of the news conference, already had accepted a job at the office of the director of national intelligence - lost his new post before he even started because of the incident.

The incident has been condemned by the White House and by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Paulison called it "an egregious decision."

A FEMA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the investigation found that during the news conference Walker advised the staff that the briefing continued to be televised and that they should continue to ask questions. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about personnel matters.

Walker, in an interview Thursday, said he had asked his boss to push back the time of the news conference, which had been hastily set for 1 p.m. Walker said he sent a 12:17 p.m. e-mail to Philbin and Homeland Security's assistant secretary for public affairs, Ed Fox, and asked for more time, but the e-mail went unanswered.

The agency's deputy administrator, Harvey Johnson, called on FEMA employees by name during the news conference and knew they weren't reporters.

The Homeland Security Department, of which FEMA is a part, directed FEMA officials to hold a news conference that day before Chertoff and Paulison landed in California, but did not designate a specific time, the FEMA official said.

Since the incident, the department suffered another public relations embarrassment when it was discovered that the assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement judged a Halloween costume contest and awarded "most original" to an employee dressed in dreadlocks, dark makeup and prison stripes. That employee has been placed on leave.
...and yesterday:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110802096.html
FEMA Simply Stumbled

Friday, November 9, 2007; A20

Regarding the Oct. 30 editorial "The Ghost of Brownie":

When wondering whether a government action is the result of conspiracy or mistake, the smart money bets on mistake. The furor over <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/FEMA?tid=informline">the Federal Emergency Management Agency's</a> recent "phony" press briefing shows that many have become so reflexively cynical that they no longer even ask. They assume that conspiracies are afoot.

In this case, there was no conspiracy and no reason to hatch one. The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/California?tid=informline">California</a> wildfire operations had gone reasonably well, especially FEMA's efforts. There was no bad news to hide and no hard questions to duck.

Here is what happened: There was pressure to inform the public quickly, and the staff, exhausted from round-the-clock duty, dropped the ball on announcing the news briefing. <h3>I was busy with meetings and unaware before the briefing that reporters had not been given adequate time to arrive and that the phone line for reporters was "listen only."</h3> The staff tried to salvage the event by asking the kinds of questions they had been fielding that morning.

Mistakes were made by a well-intentioned staff, and I made two. I did not ensure that the staff had made adequate preparations, and when I found out in the middle of the briefing, I did not intervene. Because I was in charge, I take responsibility for letting this hastily planned briefing go forward.

<h3>However, neither I nor anyone on the staff is guilty of any attempt to deceive.</h3>

JOHN P. PHILBIN

Herndon

<i>The writer was director of external affairs for FEMA until last month.</i>
I could post other supporting examples to illustrate why I'm very concerned that I, am under reacting to the news of the intentional dismantling and undermining of what remains of our government, but for now, I'll add only one other:
<img src="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/kerikrudy-fp-big.jpg">
President Bush announced, several years ago, the appointment the man in the foreground to be the first Director of Homeland Security. When he was mayor of NYC, 2008 republican presidential frontrunning candidate, Rudolph Giuliani, appointed the same man, Bernard Kerik, as NYC's "top cop", without ordering a thorough background check of Kerik. Kerik was indicted yesterday on 16 federal charges, including failure to declare nearly $500,000 in income equivalent, the value of goods and services he had accepted from firms doing or hoping to do business with the City of NY while Kerik was police commissioner.

While "the news" has me leaning toward wanting to see a move in the direction of the house committee on un-American activities convening hearings where the first question each subpoenaed witness who actually responds by showing up, is asked is, <h3>..."Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the republican party?"</h3>

...I'm reading reactions to what I post, like the following;
Quote:
...You're the most partisan regular poster in Tilted Politics....
Quote:
....But you, sir, are giving the appearance of the very embodiment of his sterotypical liberal....
...and I'm seeing a number of posters on this forum posting opinions that "government doesn't work", and we need Ron Paul to.....

So, is there a disconnect? Isn't the reason it looks like government "doesn't work", a result of an intenional movement to demonize the idea of government working?
Quote:
...."The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" .....

-Ronald Reagan
<h3>Or, do you have the correct take on things. I'm "too partisan", or the government needs to be reduced in size to the point that it performs only security functions, the courts, and the military, under the reforms of Ron Paul?</h3>

Doesn't anybody else see that what is happening directly parallels what Grover Norquist said the republican agenda was?
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#_note-7
(21) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1123439

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Connections to Jack Abramoff
Main article: Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal

Jack Abramoff pled guilty to conspiracy to corrupt public officials, mail fraud and tax evasion on January 3, 2006. According to an investigative report on Abramoff's lobbying released in June 2006 by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) served as a "conduit" for funds that flowed from Abramoff's clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns. A second group Norquist was involved with, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, received about $500,000 in Abramoff client funds.[3]

Norquist has been close friends with Abramoff since college, when he ran Abramoff’s successful campaign to become national chairman of the College Republicans.....
Can you at least think about the idea that republicans never stopped fighting Roosevelt's new deal? How does the muted, complacent reaction to the deliberate destruction of effective government and budget management, evident in it's comeback as recently as in 2000, and accompanied then by an actual reduction in the number of non-military federal employees, square with the criminality, incompetence, indifference and partisanizing of whole federal agencies, DOD and DOJ the most alarming, square with reaching a conclusion that "government doesn't work", instead of, government has been intentionally made to look as if it doesn't work?

How does the apathy/cynicism seen here (and in the country), coincide with the popularity of programs like student aid, federal policy facilitating home mortgage lending and subsidies, medicare, and social security and food stamps?

Is it really, considering what we've experienced in the last seven years, unreasonable to look at who is undermining the position our government was in, in 2000, vs. today, and post about it here, in real time? And, in the course of doing that, to become concerned that you are not reacting with nearly enough outrage to all that has and continues to happen?

Last edited by host; 11-10-2007 at 03:03 PM..
host is offline  
Old 11-11-2007, 10:34 PM   #2 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: way out west
I don't think the government is fixable no matter which party is in power. I like Ron Paul's ideas but doubt one man can accomplish what needs to be done. The last guy to try didn't fare so well on a visit to Dallas in 1963.
fastom is offline  
 

Tags
circle, cynical or apathetic, fema, jerk, partisan, reaction


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:06 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360