josh marshall says:
"A look at the sourcing suggests it comes mainly, though not exclusively, from administration sources from DOJ, DOD, DHS and the White House. Despite that, it really doesn't put things in a particularly good light."how about that! even lying anonymous sources within the egadminstration cant even put a good face on it.
"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 Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established."'felt certain'? wtf? ummm - why didnt they ask her?
"While combat 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."again, wtf? they couldnt send in the relief teams because some people were stealing food and water? tell me they're kidding. please. i wonder if there has *ever* been a situation where troops have been required to do 'relief' without the possibility of some 'law-and-order challenges'.
and then the other excuses begin:
"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."again, wtf? this 'message' is 'just as important' as the invoking of the Insurrection Act. im not sure why this message is so critical - are they pointing to the fact that she is a "southern" governor? is that the problem? or the fact that she is a dem? or the fact that she is a she? whatever the problem, it sure as hell doesnt withstand any scrutiny - but the Message Machine has obviously decided that this is the best theyve got, becuase the same message comes from everyone: "according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.""
all the way down in para17, we finally get some of that 'balance' that the media is famous for:
"But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit."puzzlement.
not to worry - his/her puzzlement is immediately countered:
"The call never came, administration officials said, in part because military officials believed Guard troops would get to the stricken region faster and because administration civilians worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters."i hardly know where to begin. firstly, throughout the entire article we repeatedly see lame-assed, multiple 'in part' excuses - which are obviously pure CYA. secondly, the 82nd were ready to move out *before* the hurricane hit, and the Guard troops didnt get there till day 4 or something - so that argument simply doesnt make sense. thirdly, why would anyone be forced to shoot any looters? fourthly - if they got there when the hurricane finished, the looting would hardly have been a problem.
in case you werent paying attention, that para 29 when the journo's actually tell you that everything else that you have read so far is completely bunk - the feds could have moved in and saved the day. legally. so they cant blame blanco, even if she is as horrible as they say. the buck has stopped. and ten bux says the OLC came to this conclusion years ago, rather than in the last week, as this article seems to intimate (but doesnt say).
"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 had authority to move in even over the objection of local officials."
the CYA continues:
" Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal ... implications."nope. wrong. legally, its a settled matter. it doesnt matter how many bush flunkies repeat the line.
they lie. they kill. i hate them.
2 comments:
BBC news last night showed flooded streets were bodies float by largely abandoned houses, the few who have chosen to sit it out having now faced the worst of it resigned to their fate. meanwhile across town in what is, judging by the housing, the "better end" of the neighbourhood the dry streets are patroled by the military. now i fully understand that wading up to your waist in stinking polluted water is never going to be popular but would it not be better if the army was to actually do something about the areas that need help?
stop press
there are now reports of the army entering some of the less damp plces and forcibly removing (now that the danger has passed) those who have remained in their homes PITY THIS WAS NOT DONE BEFORE THE HURRICANE
malagaoth - lets hope theres a special circle in hell for these people.
the true horror of what they have done (and not done) will soon be evident even to the sleeping americans.
Post a Comment