Bush - Levy Investigation - Conflict of Interest?
-
I'm Canadian so those of you in the US can certainly tell me to mind my own business... but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response? For example the declining of the funding for Levy maintenance occured during his administration if I'm not mistaken. I freely admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the US style of government vis-a-vis Congress and the Senate, and who is responsible to who and how integrated the president is related these two bodies. I understand that there is some detachment from the president to these congress and senate (unlike Canadian government) [which perhaps makes him the ideal person to head the investigation] but my gut tells me that this is still a terrible conflict of interest... If I am totally off base here then please someone kindly clarify my misconception. Cheers, David -- modified at 19:22 Wednesday 7th September, 2005
-
I'm Canadian so those of you in the US can certainly tell me to mind my own business... but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response? For example the declining of the funding for Levy maintenance occured during his administration if I'm not mistaken. I freely admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the US style of government vis-a-vis Congress and the Senate, and who is responsible to who and how integrated the president is related these two bodies. I understand that there is some detachment from the president to these congress and senate (unlike Canadian government) [which perhaps makes him the ideal person to head the investigation] but my gut tells me that this is still a terrible conflict of interest... If I am totally off base here then please someone kindly clarify my misconception. Cheers, David -- modified at 19:22 Wednesday 7th September, 2005
Orcrist wrote: but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response? I have no problem with him or one of the appropriate senate committee chairman heading the investigation. Given that the investigative team is bi-partisan. If the investigation turns into a political finger exercise then I have a problem with whom ever. Orcrist wrote: For example the declining of the funding for Levy maintenance occured during his administration if I'm not mistaken. Dam and levee reconstruction have never been fully funded. (well in my lifetime.) There are many that are of questionable condition. This is also more congress than the president to allocate the budget. Orcrist wrote: my gut tells me that this is still a terrible conflict of interest... And picking a democrat who wanted to find fault would not be. I understand your point but one side of the other must be the head. Back to my first comment above. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
-
I'm Canadian so those of you in the US can certainly tell me to mind my own business... but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response? For example the declining of the funding for Levy maintenance occured during his administration if I'm not mistaken. I freely admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the US style of government vis-a-vis Congress and the Senate, and who is responsible to who and how integrated the president is related these two bodies. I understand that there is some detachment from the president to these congress and senate (unlike Canadian government) [which perhaps makes him the ideal person to head the investigation] but my gut tells me that this is still a terrible conflict of interest... If I am totally off base here then please someone kindly clarify my misconception. Cheers, David -- modified at 19:22 Wednesday 7th September, 2005
I see it as mostly a conflict of interest for the American taxpayer. There is little question that the issue of the levies extends over multiple administrations. And despite the heated debate here and other places, it is pretty obvious to me at least that there was a clear failure in the response at all levels - local, state and federal. I don't want to see Bush conducting such a inquiry, and I don't even want a bi-partisan committee conducting such an inquiry. It is all just politics and amounts to nothing more than a pointless waste of taxpayer's money. What we need instead is for all agencies to just outright acknowledge that there was gross failure at all levels of the situation, and we should instead study what to do the next time such an event happens, not waste a bunch of my money on some bullshit study just to try cover somebody's ass.
-
I see it as mostly a conflict of interest for the American taxpayer. There is little question that the issue of the levies extends over multiple administrations. And despite the heated debate here and other places, it is pretty obvious to me at least that there was a clear failure in the response at all levels - local, state and federal. I don't want to see Bush conducting such a inquiry, and I don't even want a bi-partisan committee conducting such an inquiry. It is all just politics and amounts to nothing more than a pointless waste of taxpayer's money. What we need instead is for all agencies to just outright acknowledge that there was gross failure at all levels of the situation, and we should instead study what to do the next time such an event happens, not waste a bunch of my money on some bullshit study just to try cover somebody's ass.
Personally and on the practical side I think you nailed it down perfectly. Unfortunately (because I agree with you) I dont think that a blanket "outright acknowledge that there was gross failure" will be sufficient(as much as it may be true). Insurance companies will (for one) be probably looking for revenue sources (ie. the governments) to address their loses once it is firmly established that it was negligence (the lack of levy maintenance) and not an Act of God (the Hurricane) that resulted in the majority of the damage [I'm not an insurance expert but it's my take on the scenario]. Someone will probably need to be at fault and hence the cover your ass scenarios will unfold in due time. While I suppose I agree that it may not be out of line for Bush to head the inquiry, what concerns me is that "He who is in charge controls the message". He will have nearly unfettered control to direct the investigation in the directions of his choosing, which can severly slant the end results of the investigation. It would be nice if everyone looked at the bigger picture but I just cant see it happening. D.
-
I'm Canadian so those of you in the US can certainly tell me to mind my own business... but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response? For example the declining of the funding for Levy maintenance occured during his administration if I'm not mistaken. I freely admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the US style of government vis-a-vis Congress and the Senate, and who is responsible to who and how integrated the president is related these two bodies. I understand that there is some detachment from the president to these congress and senate (unlike Canadian government) [which perhaps makes him the ideal person to head the investigation] but my gut tells me that this is still a terrible conflict of interest... If I am totally off base here then please someone kindly clarify my misconception. Cheers, David -- modified at 19:22 Wednesday 7th September, 2005
Orcrist wrote: but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response You forget that Bush said he will look into what went right and what went wrong with the situation.:~ It will be interesting to see the outcome of this investigation.:sigh: I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
-
Orcrist wrote: but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response You forget that Bush said he will look into what went right and what went wrong with the situation.:~ It will be interesting to see the outcome of this investigation.:sigh: I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
-
I just thought his choice of words were interesting. Kind of sounded like when he quickly (shortly after the invasion) declared the end of major combat in Iraq. Shortly after that he announced that the increasing (at the time) insurgency was a sure sign that we were winning.:confused: I am interested to see his critique of the report when it is published. I also wonder if some of the blame will be that a good portion of the National Guard in the region is deployed in Iraq along with most of their equipment which were both ment to be used in times of regional emergency. I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -- modified at 21:55 Wednesday 7th September, 2005
-
I'm Canadian so those of you in the US can certainly tell me to mind my own business... but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response? For example the declining of the funding for Levy maintenance occured during his administration if I'm not mistaken. I freely admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the US style of government vis-a-vis Congress and the Senate, and who is responsible to who and how integrated the president is related these two bodies. I understand that there is some detachment from the president to these congress and senate (unlike Canadian government) [which perhaps makes him the ideal person to head the investigation] but my gut tells me that this is still a terrible conflict of interest... If I am totally off base here then please someone kindly clarify my misconception. Cheers, David -- modified at 19:22 Wednesday 7th September, 2005
It's interesting how when a congressional committee is put together - how surprising self critical it can be. I was surprised at the Tower findings which were headed up by John Tower, a strong Reagan supporter. In addition, the 9/11 commission - although it might have been more critical - did seem to come up with some real unpleasent realities. Of course there are other cases like the Warren commission which were fairly shoddy work.
-
I see it as mostly a conflict of interest for the American taxpayer. There is little question that the issue of the levies extends over multiple administrations. And despite the heated debate here and other places, it is pretty obvious to me at least that there was a clear failure in the response at all levels - local, state and federal. I don't want to see Bush conducting such a inquiry, and I don't even want a bi-partisan committee conducting such an inquiry. It is all just politics and amounts to nothing more than a pointless waste of taxpayer's money. What we need instead is for all agencies to just outright acknowledge that there was gross failure at all levels of the situation, and we should instead study what to do the next time such an event happens, not waste a bunch of my money on some bullshit study just to try cover somebody's ass.
*gasp* you mean FIX the problem instead of spending months trying to avoid blame ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
I just thought his choice of words were interesting. Kind of sounded like when he quickly (shortly after the invasion) declared the end of major combat in Iraq. Shortly after that he announced that the increasing (at the time) insurgency was a sure sign that we were winning.:confused: I am interested to see his critique of the report when it is published. I also wonder if some of the blame will be that a good portion of the National Guard in the region is deployed in Iraq along with most of their equipment which were both ment to be used in times of regional emergency. I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -- modified at 21:55 Wednesday 7th September, 2005
JimmyRopes wrote: I also wonder if some of the blame will be that a good portion of the National Guard in the region is deployed in Iraq along with most of their equipment which were both meant to be used in times of regional emergency. federal laws require that 50% of national guard resources saty within the USA just for this reason. The troops in the area now make up a tiny % of what is here in the US.
-
JimmyRopes wrote: I also wonder if some of the blame will be that a good portion of the National Guard in the region is deployed in Iraq along with most of their equipment which were both meant to be used in times of regional emergency. federal laws require that 50% of national guard resources saty within the USA just for this reason. The troops in the area now make up a tiny % of what is here in the US.
Anonymous wrote: federal laws require that 50% of national guard resources saty within the USA just for this reason. The troops in the area now make up a tiny % of what is here in the US. Well it looks like someone flouted federal law, yet again, because the Pentagon announced that it will have to re-adjust the posting of NG troops so that no state is left with less than 50% of their NG strength at home, as is currently the case. Laws only work as more than a warm and fuzzy feeling when they are upheld. I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes
-
I'm Canadian so those of you in the US can certainly tell me to mind my own business... but doesn't it strike you as a conflict of interest to have President Bush be heading the investigation of the what went wrong with the disaster response? For example the declining of the funding for Levy maintenance occured during his administration if I'm not mistaken. I freely admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the US style of government vis-a-vis Congress and the Senate, and who is responsible to who and how integrated the president is related these two bodies. I understand that there is some detachment from the president to these congress and senate (unlike Canadian government) [which perhaps makes him the ideal person to head the investigation] but my gut tells me that this is still a terrible conflict of interest... If I am totally off base here then please someone kindly clarify my misconception. Cheers, David -- modified at 19:22 Wednesday 7th September, 2005
Ok. Mind your own business. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke