Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumed Purpose of FEMA
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 2 (244037)
09-16-2005 2:05 AM


We, of course, assume that FEMA's purpose is to save people during emergencies. What if it has ulterior motives, such as making people feel like the federal government needs more power.
In that case, wouldn't sitting back and letting NO reach crisis-levels before acting make sense?
Bush says at CNN:
quote:
"It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority," he said, "and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice."
Just a thought. Maybe things make more sense if you assume the federal government is out to hurt/overrun the people instead save them.
AbE: And demolish the Constitution at every turn.
--Jason
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-16-2005 02:06 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2005 4:27 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 2 of 2 (244052)
09-16-2005 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-16-2005 2:05 AM


What if it has ulterior motives, such as making people feel like the federal government needs more power.
That's an interesting conspiracy theory, straight out of the last star wars episode. I doubt FEMA has such ulterior motives and I am unsure why they would have such a thing.
However you raise a valid point whether negligence was planned or not. The fact is that unscrupulous people can take advantage of what happened in order to gain more power, power that is wholly unwarranted in the face of this disaster.
Let me requote Bush here...
"It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority," he said, "and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice.'
I'm sorry, where did he come up with this analysis? That conclusion isn't clear to me at all. If he didn't do what he should have done in a timely manner with the authority he did have, what is giving him (or that office) extra authority going to do?
I find this especially galling as many Reps are on the bandwagon that we should really wait on dealing out blame, and punishment where blame falls. We cannot know that, they say, until we have some time to step back and really review everything.
Yet, we can now start stating exactly what we need to avoid what went wrong?
As much as I think the Feds should have been playing a more constructive role faster, I have yet to see one credible explanation of why they could not have acted in some pre-emptive ways on their own, especially preparing for an expected (and then delivered) request for assistance.
It makes no sense to think that suddenly the Feds get more power over states. In a situation where there were clear failures at ALL LEVELS, that makes as much sense as the gov and mayor coming out and saying its clear they need more authority over federal assets.
No one needed more POWER. They all needed to get their shit together. Hopefully the Wizard of Oz will tell him that he had authority all along, and all he really needs is a brain and some courage.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-16-2005 2:05 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024