In the event of one of the above mentioned disasters, at least we can take solace in one of KJSmitty's hilarious photoshop doc's

---

iambigkahunatony.com

What would it take for you to realize that none of this is entirely related to the adminstration in the white house and to quite being so completely politically biased.

"1. Nuclear/dirty bomb goes off in a major city. Agencies are able to trace it back to it being smuggled in via an unprotected US port."

How do you propose we completely protect every port 100% without completely disrupting the flow of goods into the country and or coasting so much as to send the economy into yet a further spiral?

"2. Some sort of chemical/nuclear catastrophie resulting from an attack on a chemical/nuclear plant by terrorists. Post-destruction analysis points to the poor border security with Canada/Mexico that allows the terrorists entry into the US undetected."

How do you propose 100% guarding every border, coast inlet etc etc without similar effects as the above.

"3. A nuclear bomb takes out a US city. Material/bomb is traced back to either North Korea or unsecured material from the former Soviet Union."

How do you propose we control what the hell is going on in other countries...well unless of course we invade all of them...oh but we've tried that and apparently that's not the way to go either...according to certain posters.

I could sit here for 10-15 minutes and come up with any number of scenarioes we are not 100% and in some cases not at all guarded against. Fact of the matter is it is impossible to be 100% protected from everything.

I just don't understand what or were such inane babbling accomplishes or gets us.

~Matt

All of them are the Gov responsibility. Every conservative i know thinks that one of the few major responsibilities of the fed gov is to protect it's citizens. Thanks for pointing out our way of thinking.

Since you brought it up, should we close and seal the borders to protect from all the events listed above?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

How do you propose we completely protect every port 100% without completely disrupting the flow of goods into the country and or coasting so much as to send the economy into yet a further spiral?

Disrupt flow is much different than stopping goods. The delays at the ports that will come with full inspections (xrays mostly) will be absorb easily by the end user. LA went on strike for a few months back in '03, and it caused a 7-14 day delay in unloading, but the end result didn't shut down our economy. A big part of the problem are factories that are running under just-in-time material schedules, rather than holding inventory. I also firmly believe that unless we get our trade imbalance in order & start producing more at home, the long-term consequences for our country are going to be rather scary.

What price are you willing to put on human life? If a bomb goes off in Chicago, killing 2/10/20k people and rendering most of downtown uninhabitable due to radiation, what effect is that going to have on our economy?

What is better: a short-term hit/delay in goods entering the country or 20k dying in a bombing?

So your position is that it is inevitable & no matter what happens, Bush Co. wouldn't be at fault? Comforting.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

I don't understand where you are going with this. In your question you ask about blaming the government. Then you talk about blaming Bush. They are not synonymous.

Last I checked, Congress was the Article I guy and that Bush couldn't stock the bathrooms with toilet paper unless Congress gave him the authority to do it. It is rather humorous watching Landrieu and company whine as if they are spectators rather than powerful government officials.

This country has made a political choice to not secure our borders. 11,000,000 illegal aliens are testament to that fact. If you actually think hiring armies of inspectors for the ports and putting up category five walls along our border is an answer to protecting our country you should say so.

Curling up in a shell and playing defense doesn't work for me. If it works for you, advocate it.

The chances of one of your scenarios playing out at some point are very real, no matter who is in the Oval office at a particular time. If, like many people in New Orleans, you think the government can be relied upon to take care of you and protect you from all problems, expect to have those illusions painfully shattered at some point during your lifetime.

at what point do you blame the gov't?

I don't put a lot of hope or credence in the government's ability to fully protect me...my family..or my personal interests. So I don't rely too heavily on the government to provide too much for my personal welfare. While I personally cannot protect myself from the examples cited I wouldn't spend too much time figuring out who to blame..rather..how I can survive if the scenarios happened.

You cite examples that are fairly extreme but certainly within the realm of possibility. Given your lack of confidence in the current administration I'm surprised you would spend so much time figuring out at what point you want to "blame" them when you have already proven a low tolerance for personal responsibility. You have no faith in the system so why are you so intent of having it protect you?

Given this...it would be more prudent for you to focus your efforts on protecting your own personal welfare rather than putting it in someone elses hands.

"So your position is that it is inevitable & no matter what happens, Bush Co. wouldn't be at fault? Comforting."

Inevitable? no. Impossible to stop? yes. Bush and Co's fault? depends on the circumstances. I think it's simply ridiculous that we expect to be protected from every possible dangerous scenario ranging from natural disaster, disease and terrorist attack. We could wrap the country up in a caccoon of safety spending every drop of GDP on safety measures and counter measures, leaving all of the US's population to live like dog's to simply produce product for "safety". Despite this "Cacoon" I guarentee bad things will happen...who's fault is it then?

"What is better: a short-term hit/delay in goods entering the country or 20k dying in a bombing?"

If you could make this direct correlation then you would have a point. But you can't so your arguement, once again, is specious. Plug the shipping ports, bomb comes from Canada. Plug the border with Canada, then Mexico. Plug all the borders, seaways, rivers etc etc...They create a cell within the US and build one here or use another method. In the end you have to accept a level of compromise and accept a level of danger. Life is not without danger and despite your belief this danger and teh results of thios danger is not anyone administrations, individual or generations "fault".

~Matt

One thing we could do is appoint FEMA people who have disaster management experience.

Mike Brown was previously head of International Arabian Horse Association, and he was fired from this job.

Here are the bios for the chief of staff and deputy cos:

If Bush were to fire FEMA director Mike Brown the agency would be run by the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff. (See the FEMA organizational chart).

The Chief of Staff is a guy named Patrick Rhode. He planned events for President Bush’s campaign. Rhode has no emergency management experience whatsoever. From Rhode’s official bio:

His first position with the Bush Administration was as special assistant to the President and deputy director of National Advance Operations, a position he assumed in January 2001. Previously, Mr. Rhode served as deputy director of National Advance Operations for the George W. Bush Presidential Campaign, in Austin, Texas.

The Deputy Chief of Staff is Scott Morris. He was a press flak for Bush’s presidential campaign. Previously, he worked for the company that produced Bush’s campaign commercials. He also has no emergency management experience. From Morris’s official bio:

Mr. Morris was also the marketing director for the world’s leading provider of e-business applications software in California, and worked for Maverick Media in Austin, Texas as a media strategist for the George W. Bush for President primary campaign and the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign.

---

iambigkahunatony.com

Kind of late for that now, isn't it? Why didn't you cite this earlier?

No doubt, but does this not follow thru just about every political agency of any party at about any level?

Certainly does even at my local political level. It's called the good ol' boy club. You rub my back I'll rub your's and for every example you can point to in one adminstration I'm sure I can do the same for another.

If you're making the point that this type of practice should stop, Hey I'm on board. If you're doing it to say "It's just becasue of this adminstatration" then I believe your head has been in the sand.

~Matt

Here's the background on the FEMA head under Clinton (while certainly a political appointee, he had some experience in the area, at least):

James Lee Witt has over 25 years of disaster management experience, culminating in his appointment as the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where he served from 1993-2001. In this capacity, he is credited with turning FEMA from an unsuccessful bureaucratic agency to an internationally lauded all-hazards disaster management agency. His leadership abilities have been praised by nationally recognized organizations, including the Council for Excellence in Government, Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and the National Association of Broadcasters.

<snip>

Mr. Witt was tapped by then-Governor Bill Clinton to assume leadership of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services (OES). He served as the Director of the Arkansas OES for four years.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Your point? I think it's great thing that Clinton apparetnly appointed someone qualified, however I'm willing to bet that if I dug a little...ok maybe not much at all I could find seeral appointies that were not qualified. On the same token I'm fairly certain I can find appointees that Bush appointed that are qulified for their position.

My point still stands that this type of practice of having "politcial gift" appointments is nothing foreign to either party.

~Matt