Redstate

Maybe....

Now that he is free ne might also be free to lie. Its not liek he will be sworn in before talk shows to tell the truth the whole truth or nothing but the truth.

I am nto saying he will, but he just might as to "project a positive image of federal help".

This is different from any other speech covered by the first amendment and not heard under oath? And different from pretty much anything stated by anyone holding elected office, provided they are outside of courthouses?

While he seems short of charisma, that's hardly a firing offense. It will be very interesting to hear his views, perhaps starting with his answer to this question:

Please compare and contrast the reaction, press and otherwise, you received following four hurricanes in Florida last year with hurricane Katrina? Share you views on dealing with state and local officials in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana respectively?

I'm sure RS and similar sites can compile quite a list.

And let's all remember it's all Karl Rove's fault!

No its fine. First Amendment and all. I just do not see why anyone  should beware. The guy was obviously unqualified for his job. No surprise he screwed it up.

I mean he is about as unqualified for that job as  I would be for being a neurosurgeon job.

Lets say tomorrow someone appoints me to be a neurosurgeon and I take the job (mind you I do nto know a thing about neurosurgery). Now two days later after I operated on people they died. Who do you think is to blame? Me for taking teh job, the guy who hired me without checking my credentials? The patients for not checking who your doctor is?

Would you want me to operate on your brain?

Unfortunately when mistakes cost people their lives it becomes a little more of a concern of how is that  the person who commited the mistake got that job in the first place.

So as I said I really do not think anyone has really anything to beware of.

Correction:

I mean he is about as qualified for that job as  I would be for a neurosurgeon one.

when you go on national television, and a reporter asks you "what about the people in the convention center?" and you answer that you didnt know till 3 days after the storm that they were there

or when you say that all the hospitals have been evacuated...and they are now pulling out bodies from those self same hospitals

you will be the scapegoat

america doesnt like someone who is supposed to be in charge, look like they are clueless

Let's hear it for Google

Michael D. Brown

Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response

Michael D. Brown was nominated by President George W. Bush as the first Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response in the newly created Department of Homeland Security in January 2003.

...

Under Secretary Brown has led Homeland Security's response to more than 164 presidentially declared disasters and emergencies, including the 2003 Columbia Shuttle disaster and the California wildfires in 2003. In 2004, Mr. Brown led FEMA's thousands of dedicated disaster workers during the most active hurricane season in over 100 years, as FEMA delivered aid more quickly and more efficiently than ever before.

Previously, Mr. Brown served as FEMA's Deputy Director and the agency's General Counsel. Shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Mr. Brown served on the President's Consequence Management Principal's Committee, which acted as the White House's policy coordination group for the federal domestic response to the attacks. Later, the President asked him to head the Consequence Management Working Group to identify and resolve key issues regarding the federal response plan.

(emphasis added)

A few things I'd like to point out from that bio:

That active hurricane season.  If memory serves, much of that hurricane activity impacted Florida.  Where, the President's brother is Governor.  If Brown was such a dunderhead and boob, then why didn't Jeb say anything?  Why didn't he mention it over Thanksgiving dinner last year?

Brown's post 9/11 experience:  The bio says the President picked him to head the Consequence Management Working Group.  Why would GWB have done that if Brown was such an obvious dolt, and utterly unqualified for the job?

Everything else I've excerpted above:  Sounds like good preparation for leading FEMA during a crisis like Hurricane Katrina.

Let me say this to be clear--although I'm sure I'll have to say it again and again and again.  It's possible that Brown earned his removal.  My point:  At the point in the crisis when many in the MSM--and the conservative blogosphere--were eagerly tying him to the stake and lighting the fire, it wasn't clear that he deserved to be the fall guy for Hurricane Katrina.  

IMO, it still isn't.  But, we've burned our witch.  So, I suppose the question of whether he really was a witch in the first place is now moot?

But I'm guessing you have no prior experience at brain surgery. Is there any explanation for the difference in Mr. Brown's performance this year, as opposed to last year?

I'm sure there is, but I just haven't heard it yet, beyond the generalities.

And the resume issue from 30 years ago is hilarious. I'm waiting for the discussion of FBI failure to perform background checks.

Notice I said "justifies" firing him.

Yes, it's an excuse for firing him.  But a justification?

restyles, can you tell us for sure that Mike Brown was shooting from the hip when he made those statements?  That he hadn't been TOLD that by someone who claimed to have the info, such as an operative in the FEMA or LA state disaster center?  

Ummm...have you ever heard of times when items of hot news, repeated endlessly by all the major news agencies in the midst of a crisis, turn out to be wrong?  Remember, for example, that car bomb that exploded at the State Department on 9/11?  It was on all the networks--even though it didn't happen.  Should we fire all the network news anchors?

He also gets to plead the fifth if he wants before the Congress critters.

If they want to turn the investigation to come into a smear job, he can say thank you but no thank you, I will be invoking my fifth amendment rights. Over to you Senator Landreau.  

I followed that one very carefully. NASA handled that, there was never any mentioned of FEMA.

I would not believe everything that on Google.

What teh actual source

"Why would GWB have done that if Brown was such an obvious dolt, and utterly unqualified for the job?"

Now you're on to something.  

Most reports I've seen attribute his appointment to his work on Bush's election campaign, and his promotion to the lucky fact of being college roommates to the outgoing director, Allbaugh.  I'm open to other explanations-- I've just yet to see any.  Certainly, it's tough to find a good one in his pre-2000 resume.

To move your little mouse over the bright red link and thence depress your index finger on the left button, but you might give it a try sometime. You might find that it takes marginally less effort than wasting bandwidth with a pointless post like this.

You might even learn that Google was not his source, but rather only where he found his source.

>Is there any explanation for the difference in Mr. Brown's performance this year, as opposed to last year?

The only explanation I see is that he had knowledgable people in the agency who handled such issues without his hands on approach. Ever been in that situation? Where your boss does not know muchm, you are the one running the show and he gets the credit. Maybe I am wrong.

Let assume for a second that he handled all those emergencies well before. What happened here? Why the memo's about handing out pamphlets and projecting positive image? Why was not FEMA fired up when the emergency was declared (26th of august I believe). Look at the guy they got handling the responses now. An admiral with years upon years of experience.

>And the resume issue from 30 years ago is hilarious.

What are you referring to? The resume that is currently underscrutany is the one that was posted on the FEMA site.

I might be wrong, but nothing how handled the disaster spells a responsible person.

My fault for not seeing the link :)

I do appologize.

FEMA site is not reliable source.

Arguably if he was a chief of FEMA he was in charge of the what teh FEMA site says about him/

Perhaps Brown and FEMA had reliable and capable partners in the past, such as the FLA governor.  You know, leaders who knew how to work with FEMA, and wouldn't bar the Red Cross and Salvation Army from downtown New Orleans?  

As for the admiral who's handling the crisis now?  Well, he brings Coast Guard resources to the table, resources his agency commands.  And, he's the beneficiary of a weeks-plus search for/removal of obstacles in the rescue process.  Brown didn't have the benefit of this.

And as for this statement: I might be wrong, but nothing how handled the disaster spells a responsible person.

NOTHING?  Yeah...I think you're wrong.

 

to this discussion.

It's not like Katrina was Brown's debut on the national hurricane scene. IIRC, he did quite fine during the fall of 2004.

I gotta tell ya, as the Monday morning quarterbacking and vitriol rises, it will become harder and harder to get good, quality people to do anything in the federal government.  Why anyone would subject themselves to the shenanigans of the US Senate confirmation process is beyond me.

Mike Brown may have made some mistakes, but he was not the only one to make mistakes.  He did not deserve this.

the Bush administration lets people put false information on the web to make themselves look good.

Good grief.  Can't you do better than that?

He did a decent enough job during the post 9/11 phase, the 2003 COLUMBIA disaster, the 2003 Western wildfires and the 2004 hurricanes to hold onto the FEMA job until now.

If he was a total dolt, then why didn't at least one of those governors--many of whom were Republicans, and one was THE PRESIDENT'S BROTHER--call for Brown to be eased out?

If Bush knew that Brown was a dolt, why would he risk leaving him in the FEMA job? Did he feel the FEMA head could hide during a crisis?  Why would Bush put his reputation and Presidency at risk in this manner?  To please a college buddy?  Do you think so little of Joe Allbaugh that you'd imply he'd nominate someone to be FEMA head simply because he was an old drinking buddy.

Making insinuations is one thing.  Making allegations that are well-grounded in evidence is another.

It's not easy defending former Director Brown. It's not too hard either, we just haven't heard that as much.

Sure FEMA's got loads of qualified staff. And loads of featherbedders as well. It's an enormous bureaucracy. That's to be expected. Nothing extraordinary there. PR memos and a positive image? I wonder if any other goverment agency has ever tried that before?

The current interim head, and newly appointed acting head may well do the job, although I suspect the admiral has clearly indicated he prefers his military career, which he seems eminently qualified for, rather than the political role which is required of FEMA's director.

Unless I missed something (and I'm not looking hard at it) the resume hullaballoo is about his job in Edmonds, Ok in the mid-70's. That's when W was wrapping up his TANG service and Bill was into who knows what kinda business. Doesn't seem serious.

Finally, there is plenty of stuff handled in this disaster which spells a responsible person, and a lot of it has to do with FEMA.

Don't believe everything you see on TV, Don't believe much of what you see on TV, unless a day or week passes and it still seems true. Then remember that there's no mention of truth or accuracy in the first amendment, just freedom.

From what you've posted the guy seems more than qualified to hold the position (unless someone wishes to make a substantiated claim that he somehow screwed up those responses) based on what he did since he took the position, which makes all of the talk about what was on his resume before hand pretty much irrelevant.

I think it was far too early to demand his resignation - if that was even appropriate and I was never sure that it was - and IMO said more about what happens when the arm chair first responders substitute volume and passion for clear thinking.

I've recommended this diary and hope that others do as well.  It's the sort of topic that needs to be discussed not just because of the ramifications for this disaster but in how it could deter other people from serving knowing they get very little thanks and pretty much all of the blame from the Monday morning quarterbacks.

as most likely the president was told, incorrectly, that the situation on the ground was well in hand

but, when you are in charge, you must take respsonsibilty

yes, he was thrown under the bus

yes, he was scapegoated

and yes, the perception of his inability to act, coming 4 years after 9/11, is enough to cause his termination...especially, since peoples lives were on the line

im not sure if the piling on was warrented....as i do not feel that his padded resume should have been leaked...that i think was going to far, and not fair to the man....but that's how it goes in washington....it can get nasty  

Have a somewhat random question that hasn't yet been asked:

Does anyone know whether Mike Brown was relieved of his "onsite command" in any of the 164 aformentioned "presidentially declared disasters and emergencies"?

I ask because I'm curious if Brown being relieved of his onsite command of Katrina was a uniqe event. A rare event.

Or whether a FEMA head being relieved of his direct duty was actually more common than people think.

Anyone know?

One doesn't get the impression that the President and Mike Brown were in particularly close communication. Seems GWB didn't want to hear much about Brown recently.

Check out this exchange today between the President and reporters, and consider how concerned about Brown the President is:

     Q    Can you tell us, have you accepted the resignation of Michael Brown, or have you heard about it?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I haven't -- no, I have not talked to Michael Brown -- or Mike Chertoff; that's who I'd talk to.  As you know, I've been working.  And when I get on Air Force One, I will call back to Washington.  But I've been on the move.

     Q    Our understanding is he has resigned, he's made a statement.  Would that be appropriate --

     THE PRESIDENT:  I haven't talked to Mike Chertoff yet, and that's what I intend to do when I get on the plane.  You know, I -- you probably -- maybe you know something I don't know, but as you know, we've been working, and I haven't had a chance to get on the phone.

The media knew that Brown had resigned before the President. You'd think Brown would submit his resignation directly to the President. Who knows.

You kind of get the impression that Bush stopped caring about Brown a week or so ago. Hung him out to dry. So Brown's resignation was only a matter of time.

Re: Notice I said "justifies" firing him.

Well, it's just the way these things work. A private business would be no different: a massive screw-up has occured, with accompanying public relations damage, and someone is going to have to take the blame. At least this is 21st century America and not some less enlightened era when someone would have handed the guy a sword and told him to fall on it.

Re: If Brown was such a dunderhead and boob, then why didn't Jeb say anything?

You're kidding, right? The president's brother is going to start criticizing the administration in the final weeks of a close-fought election campaign?

But there was some grumbling about FEMA in Florida last year, it was just kept low-key for the obvious reasons. And don't forget the scandal of FEMA handing out millions of dollars in "aid" in Miami-Dade county, which was over a hundred miles or more away from any of the storms.

FEMA was the lead agency. NASA doesn't have the staff or expertise for the recovery of bodies or hazardous materials.

Howdy, George here.

Hey, big guy.  This is your kid brother Jeb - you know, the Governor of that battleground state that you kinda-sorta need to win in order to get 4-more years all expenses paid at that Pennsylvania Avenue address?  Thanks for asking - Columba and the kids are fine.

Look I really don't want this to get out, so I'm using this newfangled invention called the telephone to get you this message.  You know that guy you sent down here when we got broad-slapped by those hurricanes - Mike Brown, or Brownie, or some such thing?  You know who I'm talking about, right?  FEMA?  Heard of it?  Good.

Well, I gotta tell you, just between us brothers, this guy is a first-class moron who wouldn't know an earthquake from a bowel movement.  Sure, he looked good for all the cameras down here, seemed to get pretty high marks from everyone - but behind the scenes?  I-D-I-O-T, I kid you not.

Now George, you know I'd be the last person on the planet to tell you your business, but I really think that once this whole election-thing blows over, you really, really need to think about moving this guy on to something where he's less likely to bite you on the old sit-upon, if you know what I mean.

Got to run, I hear Catherine Harris is on the other line.  Say Hi to Dad, you know "41", for me next time you two are up in Kinne.

Oh, and please send appropriate respects to Lord Rove for me.  Thanks bro.  Adios.

I'm quickly losing my respect for my personal "Paper of Record," the Washington Post, after this arrogant, mean, unprofessional, condescending Op-Ed this morning; capped off by a title that must have been written by an embittered high school journalism wannabe.  

Goodbye, 'Brownie'

NO ONE WILL be sorry or surprised to learn that Michael D. Brown, formerly the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, intends to spend more time with his family. Mr. Brown will be forever remembered as the man who, at the height of the New Orleans evacuation crisis, appeared not to know that 25,000 people were crammed into the city's convention center without food, water or toilets, despite television reports broadcasting that fact for the previous 24 hours. Since then, his qualifications -- which mostly consist of a long stint running horse shows, as well as a useful friendship with a friend of the president -- have sparked a good deal of righteous indignation.

Excrement.

We are free to infer the following from this op-ed, this expression of professional wisdom and mature opinion from one of America's most important daily newspapers:

1. Brown's experiences in FEMA, to include leading it for two years, through the California wildfires, the COLUMBIA disaster and the Florida hurricane campaign of 2004, mean NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING!
   
   
2. Joe Allbaugh, the friend of the president, is a crony and unconcerned with America's safety.  Otherwise, how else could he nominate someone he knew to be a dolt to lead America's crisis responsse efforts?
   
   
3. The Washington Post feels that Google is beneath them.  Otherwise, they would have found Brown's bio on the FEMA website.  Seeing as they are indeed the Washington Post, I presume they did find the bio, have investigated it, found it to be padded--- and simply forgot to tell anyone!
   
   
4. Governor Jeb Bush, in the interest of (insert a reason here--I can't think of one), after seeing Brown's incompetence as FOUR COUNT 'EM FOUR hurricanes hit Florida last year, didn't tell his little brother what a loser Brown was.
   
   
5. The Washington Post has no class.

Hey!  I think I've figured it out!  At some point, Obi Wan Kenobi must have shown up and influenced our minds to think that Brown was A-OK!

Governor Jeb Bush, and the ever-observant Washington Post:  "This guy Brown is a dolt!"

Obi-Wan:  "Mike Brown is a fine FEMA administrator.

Bush/Post:  "Mike Brown is a fine FEMA administrator.

What jerks! What snobs!

Who cares about determining the truth, when parroting allegations and making snarky comments is so much more fun?

Hello, Chicago Tribune!

...that consumed Michael Brown, before we had a chance to determine if he really deserved to be the fall guy.  I don't doubt that Brown became a liability which Bush could no longer afford, given everything else that's on his plate.

Now, Mike Brown is most likely cemented in the public conscience as the Boob Who Lost New Orleans.  Whether he really deserved to go or not is now irrelevant---don'tcha think.

I expected this from the MSM and the Dems.  I didn't expect it from the conservative blogosphere.  I thought we were above this kind of scapegoating and witch burning.

Apparently not.

I know it's something that so few people in Washington ever portray, but let's try to ignore the Talking Points about how stupid Bush is.

Of course POTUS knew that Brown was going to resign, no one at that level steps down in this, or any, Administration without POTUS knowing.  But Bush, being the classy guy that he is, wanted to allow Brown to have the dignity of making his resignation public on his own, presumably when he was ready to face the media with his statement.  So when the media asked the question, Bush wasn't sure if Brown had resigned yet or if the media was just speculating still.

Bush didn't want to confirm it until he knew Brown had made it public.

But I'll agree that Bush knew the resignation was only a matter of time after he called Brown back away from being in charge of the mission.  No one in any administration is more important than POTUS and if you become a distraction to the mission, to the administration, you are asked to resign.  SOP.

in the first place.  Actually, he claimed his main qualification was all the emergency planning he was responsisble for as assistant city manager 20+ years ago-- only (and BBC's The Office fans will surely appreciate this) he was actually the assistant to the city manager, which is something like a glorified intern. Whoops.

And I'm not sure how difficult those other situations were-- not to downplay their tragedy, but there was certainly nothing on the scale of Katrina.  It's possible he skated through a few smaller, less urgent emergencies without anyone really noticing he was in over his head.  

"If Bush knew that Brown was a dolt, why would he risk leaving him in the FEMA job? Did he feel the FEMA head could hide during a crisis?  Why would Bush put his reputation and Presidency at risk in this manner?  To please a college buddy?  Do you think so little of Joe Allbaugh that you'd imply he'd nominate someone to be FEMA head simply because he was an old drinking buddy."

These are all great questions.  If you really dig here, instead of just giving the president the benefit of the doubt, you might not like what you find.  A good place to start might be this TNR article. The only thing I've found to explain Brown's initial hiring and promotion is rapant cronyism-- but as I said, I'm open to other explanations.  Let me know if you find any.

The small "resume" issue from 30 years ago that everyone here is dismissing-- I think that qualifies as "false information on the web [designed] to make [Brown] look good".  

 

I wasn't aware that Bush or Rove were poring through people's resumes for job specifics of 30 years ago.

Please.

There is a legitimate beef against Brown, but his resume from 30 years ago isn't it.  You minimize any relevant arguments by focusing on that point.

I'll put my faith in the private sector to vet Mr. Brown's performance.

Let's see how fast some big corporation gobbles him up for high profile, high responsibility position.  Or who rushes to hire his "consulting firm."

What he winds up doing after this will tell me a lot more about Mr. Brown's abilities and performance than anything else. Certainly more than anything he says.

I guess that's the point, though. At least, that was the basis for my question.

How was it that Brown publicly resigned and Bush did not know? You'd think that, at the very least, Bush's people would have informed him that Brown pubily resigned.

Or more ideally, that Brown would have told Bush that he was publicly resigning.

Just seems strange that a subordinate would resign pubicly, giving comments directly to the media and the public, and the President wouldn't know.

It's perfectly reasonable that the President would want to show class and let Brown make the announcement publicly on his own before commenting on it, but why, when Bush was informed by the media that they'd already heard of Brown's resignation, would Bush, at that point, still not know?

It's an odd closure to a very odd system of communication between those two.

that this stuff was on the website.  Obviuosly that's going to be overseen by Brown himself.  Whether or not they checked his credentials before they initially hired him is something else.

And this minor little resume detail from 30 years ago cuts to the heart of his incompetence.  His only claim to disaster response experience in 2000 was that he "serv[ed] as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight."

From the TIME piece about Brown:

"The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him."

That seems like a pretty relevant discrepancy to me.  This little piece on his resume from 30 years ago, helped him get the job 5 years ago that he used as a springboard (along with connections to his college buddy Allbaugh) to get the FEMA head position.

And the position he lied about was from 30 years ago.  The resume in which you can find that lie is only 5 years old-- so the actual resume itself isn't really from 30 years ago.

On a side note, I'm a huge fan of BBC's The Office, and the assistant to the regional manager bit was one of my favorites on the show.  Regardless of party affiliation, it is a little disturbing to see life imitate comedy so exactly-- even if it is one of the best comedies around.

Look, I'm glad that Michael Brown has resigned.  He became a distraction and an obvious target.

But that 'fact' has already been called into question by Ms. Deakins herself.

On Friday, Deakins issued a clarification of her remarks to Time, saying that she did not actually work in Edmond at the same time as Brown, and therefore cannot speak with any authority about his assignments at the time.

"I regret any misunderstandings that may have occurred as a result of my comments," Deakins said.

This whole issue is just bunk.  He didn't get the job because of his time on a job 30 years ago.  

He got the job because of who he knew.  That's Washington.  For good or ill, it's the way it is.  

"A former mayor of Edmond, Randel Shadid, confirmed Friday that Brown was an assistant to the city manager. Shadid told The Associated Press that Brown had never been an assistant city manager, though."

I'll accept that "he got that job because of who he knew" as a likely explanation, but I think this detail is exculpatory to the president if anything.  Even if it was cronyism, it's better to appoint a buddy who might be minimally qualified than to appoint a buddy with no qualifications whatsoever.  In this case, Bush can argue that he at least thought Brown to be minimally qualified because of his alleged experience in Edmund.  Thus, the blame falls on Brown for lying, rather than on Bush for hiring someone he knew to be unqualified.

IIRC, Bush was asked about it before Brown's resignation was officially made public.  What were the exact times of Bush's question from the media and Brown's actual resignation?

Could there have been <gasp> a leak from somewhere?  Either the WH or FEMA?  There's lots of people in official Washington that wanted to punch him in the gut on the way out.  But when someone like this resigns, lots of people 'know' before it becomes officially public.  Andy Card, Karl Rove, Scott McClellan, Chertoff, his deputy, and probably even the chairmen of the relevant committees (though that's sometimes not always the case).  Plus any assorted lackeys (political andf career) these people have (not intended to be an offensive term, I'm a lackey myself.)

So someone wanted to give some good stuff to the AP reporter just ahead of time to feel the rush of associated glory.

When Bush was asked, he knew it was coming at some point today.  They had a replacement within hours, and those things don't happen in a vacuum.  Unless you are one of those folks who think Rove and Cheney run everything, then I see no further use in talking with you.

But if the resignation hadn't actually happened yet, publicly, and Bush confirmed the media's question (which, iirc, was not 'Brown announced his resignation, what do you think?' but 'The AP is reporting that Brown is resigning today, is that true?') the meme would have been that Bush fired Brown.

Despite whatever perceived notions of Brown's competence, Bush wanted to be respectful to the man that he probably felt got something of a bum rap.

Bush doesn't play the stupid games of Washington, he doesn't care about the status or power or bs things so many small minded people come up with.  He's not going to give in now, or later.

Brown wasn't originally hired to be in charge of FEMA, he started as General Counsel (he's a lawyer, so he met that qualificiation standard).  Then he became Deputy Director (a not uncommon move in Washington, or in some businesses).  Then he became director of FEMA.

He got on the job training for several years at FEMA, learned the ropes, and the Peter Principle obviously kicked in.

This is a specious attack.

this wasnt a low level post, or an ambasadorship...this was a position of great responsibility

the argument of "thats just the way its done" doesnt wash in this case

it would seem is with the entire system of the president having the authority to appoint the heads of executive branch agencies and with the senate confirmation process.

FEMA was and is a minor agency.

His first job at FEMA, that of General Counsel, required a general knowledge of the law.  As a lawyer he had that knowledge and was perfectly qualified.

While at FEMA he developed an understanding of the mission and role of FEMA and was promoted to Deputy.  That happens all the time in any and every administration.  Presumably he had the ability, as most humans do, of learning and growing and he did, in fact, have the necessary skills to be the deputy.

When Allbaugh left, Brown got promoted to be in charge.  Not uncommon for a deputy to get the push up to the top job.  Happens all the time in many administrations.

I know that his resignation took the wind out of some of the sails of the left, but it's really absurd at this point.

I would refer folks to the Tuesday, September 13 edition of the uber liberal Wall Street Journal. The link (http://online.wsj.com/public/us) is subscriber only so I will post some excerpts.

The WSJ reported the following:

"As the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency stepped down yesterday, government documents surfaced showing that vital resources, such as buses and environmental health specialists, weren't deployed to the Gulf region for several days, even after federal officials seized control of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts ..."

Further:

"Separately, internal documents and emails from FEMA and other government agencies dating back to Aug. 31 and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show the extent to which the federal government bungled its response to the hurricane. The documents highlight serious deficiencies in the Department of Homeland Security's National Response Plan, a post-Sept. 11 playbook on how to deal with catastrophic events. Mr. Chertoff activated the National Response Plan last Tuesday by declaring the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina an "Incident of National Significance."

Also:

"In addition, FEMA's official requests, known as tasking assignments and used by the agency to demand help from other government agencies, show that it first asked the Department of Transportation to look for buses to help evacuate the more than 20,000 people who had taken refuge at the Superdome in New Orleans at 1:45 a.m. on Aug. 31. At the time, it only asked for 455 buses and 300 ambulances for the enormous task. Almost 18 hours later, it canceled the request for the ambulances because it turned out, as one FEMA employee put it, "the DOT doesn't do ambulances."

And:

"The part of the plan that authorizes OSHA's role as coordinator and allows it to mobilize experts from other agencies such as NIH wasn't activated by FEMA until shortly before 5 p.m. Sunday. The delay came despite repeated efforts by the agencies to mobilize.

Attempts by officials at NIH to reach FEMA officials and send them briefing materials by email failed as the agency's server failed.

"I noticed that every email to a FEMA person bounced back this week. They need a better internet provider during disasters!" one frustrated Department of Health official wrote to colleagues last Thursday."

I encourage everyone to read the article for themselves if they're so inclined, and apologize for not having an accessible link.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Well, Brown publicly resigned at a press conference/interview earlier in the day. I'm sure Bush knew it was in the works or coming. I'm just surprised he didn't know it had happened - publicly - when he was asked about it by the press.

Put differently, I'm surprised someone didn't inform the President that Brown had "officially" resigned. Seems like something he would want to know.

I don't view this is as a big deal. Just something I found surprising.

But your last post, raises another interesting question I have about the inner workings of the Bush Administration.

You speculate (perhaps rightly) that "Bush wanted to be respectful to the man that he probably felt got something of a bum rap." The implication is that you speculate Bush felt Brown didn't, in fact, screw up and was getting a bad deal.

My question, then, is why do you think Bush accepted the resignation of an embattled Administration team member. During Abu Ghraib, when Sec. Rumsfeld was (rightly or wrongly) under considerable fire from the media and some of the public, he offered his resignation to Bush not once, but twice.

Bush did not accept Rumsfeld's resignation as he felt the Secretary hadn't done anything wrong. And Rumsfeld continued on in his duties.

By contrast, I wonder why Bush accepted Brown's resignation, given the President's track record of standing by his people?

Thoughts?

Well, this would be speculation, but there is an inherent difference between domestic responsibility and the conduct of war.

Sec. Rumsfeld has a number of responsibilities as Sec of Defense.  He has military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan, bases throughout the world, BRAC, coordination with DHS, military modernization, communication with DCI, DDI, etc, and god knows what else on his plate.

So there was a scandal at one minor installation under his perview that was intolerable and unacceptable.  Rumsfeld and Bush acted to end the behavior, punish the wrongdoers, and ensure that the  illegality didn't happen again.  But Rumsfeld still had a list of 900 other things he had to do.  when he offered to resign Bush essentially said, I've got a list of 900 things you've got to do, 1 thing of which went wrong.  I'll thank you to stay and do your job.

Brown's chief responsibility is running FEMA.  FEMA's responsibility is to respond to disaster.  If Brown no longer had the faith of other governor's, the faith of the american people, or the faith of the Administration (Chertoff et al) then Bush had no choice to accept Brown's resignation.  Bush coudln't afford to have other governors questioning the role of FEMA in the future because of perceptions about Brown for fear of another catastrophe on top of a disaster.

I understand all that, and I think your postulation makes a lot of sense. Moreover, I think you're right, on some level, about the distinctions between foreign and domestic policy.

But it doesn't really answer my question. My question is not why Brown resigned and/or why Bush may have been less enthused about Brown.

My question pertains to your earlier speculation that Bush probably thought Brown got a raw deal or was being unfairly blamed and, in turn, felt Brown didn't do anything wrong.

My point, then, is that Bush has traditionally stood by his people when he felt they did nothing wrong even if the media and critics were calling for their heads.

So, given that track record, I'm trying to reconcile why, if Bush felt Brown had done nothing wrong and was being scapegoated, the President would buckle to pressure this time and accept a resignation of an embattled Administration team member when he's refused to buckle before when people like Rumsfeld, Rove, et al were under pressure from the media and critics.

Why did the President buckle this time? And never before?

If his job is delivering supplies and providing rescue for during disasters I would not call it minor.

>Brown didn't have the benefit of this.

Why hire unqualified people then?

Especially if they are responsible for handling disasters.

Thats point that have been made, if you do not count that stint of his, he has NO experience in handlign first responders.

I do not know about Bush but the argument that Brown has lied is the essence of this debate. If he lied to get the job I do not see what would stop him from lying on the website.

 

that isn't FEMA's job, so really you should understand it's roll before classifying it. It has 5000 employees located in 50 states, the territories, it's HQ, and several foreign countries. So it isn't big or concentrated.

You can call in major if you wish, but it really takes the meaning away from the word and concept.

After Enron, WorldCom and others you still trust big corporations?

Here's my idle speculation:

Rumsfeld has seemed to say that he has said to POTUS: Hey if you don't want me here, if you don't think I'm doing a good job, I'm plenty old, plenty rich, plenty healthy, I can go do other things.

Bush: Don, I think you're doing a good job.  I appreciate your service.

rumsfeld: But the media, the Senate, and DailyKos don't like me.

Cheney: Oh tell em all to go Leahy themselves.

Bush: Don, you've got my respect, you've got my support.  I'd like you to stay.

On the other hand

Brown: Mr. President, I've talked with Mike, Karl, and the Vice President.  I've become a distraction from the recovery, from the mission, and from your agenda.  I feel the best thing to do is resign and let you move forward.

Bush: Brownie, you know I think you're doing a good job.  I appreciate what you're doing, and you've gotten a bum rap.  I'm sorry to see you go.

---

The difference again is that Rumsfeld hasn't really distracted Bush from his agenda.  Brown has.

Bush was disgusted by abu Ghraib, but it wasn't significant enough to him to focus too much energy or effort on.  Katrina is a horse of a totally different color.  He has to change almost everything he's focusing on to address this issue.  He had to make a statement or two on Abu Ghraib.  Remember, the Left is obsessed with Abu Ghraib, not Bush or Rumsfeld.  They've ordered people to clean it up and not given it much more thought.  But Bush will be working daily to resolve the Katrina mess.

Brown got a bum rap, but sometimes good people get  hurt by government.  As Reagan said, the most dangerous sentence in the English language is "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."

Again, just my speculation.

You trust big corporations every minute of your day to provide all your needs. Food, housing, utilities, internet access, medicine, transportation, and the tp to wipe your little butt, etc, etc. Quit your pitiful whining.

Hmm. Unfortunately, I think your dialogue is more confusing than anything.

So let me pose the question in another way:

What do you think the likelihood is that Bush accepted Mike Brown's resume because the President simply felt that Brown was no longer the best person for the job and didn't perform as well as he could have?

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.

We know a few things:

(1) Bush could have refused to accept Brown's resignation as he's done already on more than one occassion with other embattled members of his administration

(2) Brown was already relieved of his onsite command by the White House so there is evidence that there was concern within the White House about his ability to perform and/or the damage that had already been done from a PR and logistical perspective.

(3) Brown tendered his resignation, and Bush accepted it.

(4) Brown is no longer working for FEMA

So, wouldn't the simplest explanation for the question of why Bush accepted Brown's resignation simply be that Bush was comfortable letting Brown go, no longer felt he was an asset to his Administration, and not committed to standing by him as he's done with Rumsfeld, Rove, et al?

ooohh, another personal attack. Good argument.

Their job is to organize it all during the disatsters. Major does nto necessarily means size, but its role. They are the first and primary agency for federal response in case of a disaster. That pretty major in my book.

But no one gets my sense of humor.

Yes, I would agree with the end of your analysis:

Bush was comfortable letting Brown go, no longer felt he was an asset to his Administration

My sense is that despite the rather strong support for Mike Brown as head of FEMA and a belief in his infallability among many on this site, the President did not share those feelings.

I imagine Bush was more than happy to see Brown disappear. If he wasn't happy to see Brown go, he would have told him to stay. And Brown would have stayed. Because the President of the United States asked him to stay - even IF he wanted to resign.

The fact that he's gone is evidence of the fact that Bush wanted him gone.

Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, then he really didn't have the resume and gravitas to be President, did he?

at any time.  Don't ask for permission.  Just rub your two brain cells together really fast , and let the chips fall where they may!

You might also want to invest in a spellchecker.  Or complete grammar school.

that learned people who write for the MSM believe that a massive operation, of the size of Hurricane Katrina response, will run like a Swiss watch.

EVERY EVERY EVERY major operation mankind ever runs is chock full of failures, from little to catastrophic.  On D-Day, for example, amphibious tanks sank before they reached the beach, naval and air bombardments which were intended to silence the German defenses failed to do so, and Rangers who climbed Point du Hoc at terrible cost found that the German guns they'd come to sacrifice--- weren't even in the bunker! Yet, we still secured the beaches on Day 1.  Should we retrospectively tear down Eisenhower's statue at West Point?

I'm confident that smug MSM reporters---and blog commenters--will find all sorts of shortcomings to point out over the next days and weeks.  And all of those observations will be based on their impressive experience in disaster relief.

Wait... what experience in disaster relief?

Thats not a bad idea.

what are you talking about?

Am I infer to from your post that you don't view the Wall Street Journal as a credible media source?

Just wanted to confirm.

An obvious distinction in your (improbable) analogy between President Eisenhower and ex-FEMA head Brown is that Eisenhower was elected by the people. As was George Bush. As was Congress.

Mike Brown was appointed based, at least in part, on a series of relationships within the Bush Administration.

No electorate assessed Brown's experience, temperment, and character and voted him into office.

So the experience, or lack thereof, of an appointed official is of far more concern because he or she was not voted in by the people. They were appointed.

He was, however, confirmed by the Senate. You'll recall that during the hearings, Democrat Senators grilled him extensively concerning his judicial temperament and his knowledge of Supreme Court rulings, just as today they are grilling Judge Roberts about his views on Katrina.

that you're only trying to be cute in this thread?  

Do you have call your friends in your Dungeons & Dragons circle every time you post something, so they can "check it out?"

Go back to that FEMA bio.  He'd been in the job for over two years, during some not insignificant crises.  Yet, President Bush didn't ease him aside.  Why?

buford's examples from the WSJ below prove, IMO, two things:

1. The Hurricane Katrina effort, a huge operation, being executed by many thousands of people, over many different levels of government, is showing lots of warts--as will any operation like this.
   
   
2. buford's here to play Mr. Devil's Advocate.

I think a more likely explanation for Brown's demise is that the media and blogosphere quickly focused on him as Culprit #1.  He became a liability, and the President had to ease him out.  

Mike Brown was grilled by the Senate on his "judicial temperment" and his "knowledge of Supreme Court rulings"?

Wasn't aware of that.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

That's actually a very good and interesting point.

It will be very interesting to see where, if anywhere, Brown turns up in the private sector.

The odds are, like many lawyers who leave the public sector and return to the private, he'll go work at some law firm.

But if he's as strong a leader and has such a sterling track record, you'd think a company would happily snap him up as a CEO.

Wasn't intended to be flippant at all.

I was just trying to clarify with the previous poster whether it was accurate to infer from his post that he simply viewed the Wall Street Journal as part of the MSM and therefore not that credible.

Only point of my question.

Right.

Got that.

Sarcasm not particularly well executed, however.

The parallelism and/or the larger dig apparently went right over your head.

for Democrats to love Lieberman.

Actually, I think, no I'm pretty sure, that it just wasn't that funny. Or more depressingly, not that clever.

It seems like you make for an easy audience, though.

I'll keep that in mind for when I'm ready to try out some of my new stand up material. I trust I can count on you for some easy and accomodating chuckles.

Because that, after all, is what friends are for.

Since we're (yet again) discussing Brown's bio, and the veracity and accuracy of it with respect to the FEMA site, I'm curious if anyone happened to notice one very interesting omission from the aformentioned bio.

Read the bio: http://www.fema.gov/about/bios/brown.shtm

Strangely, and I can't imagine why this was left out of his official bio, there's no mention of the 10 years of work experience he had prior to joining FEMA and after he left his legal work in Oklahoma and Colorado.

Usually, when you see someone's bio or resume posted online, particularly in a public position, ALL of their work experience is detailed. That's fairly standard.

Does anyone have any insight into what Brown was doing during that missing 10 years of his bio? And does anyone have any thoughts on why that decade of his professional life would not have been included in his official bio?

Trying to figure that out. Any insight would be most appreciated.

Of course.

No one wants that.