Homeland Security and the Passive President
This is no defense of DHS head Michael Chertoff. Today's House Report by Republicans is truly a stinging indictment of his leadership, his failure to activate plans, to assess the situation and to take charge. The press accounts are accurate in this regard. But, reading the whole 400 plus page report, it was a good thing that the Democrats didn't sign on. According to the report A Failure of Initiative, its only Chertoff's initiative that is to blame. Where the heck is Bush?
There is a lot to learn from this Report and it is fascinating, as well as frustrating, as events unfold with no equivalent response. The Mayor and Governor are taken to task for their leadership; certainly, the blame seems accurate.
But, as regards the White House, there is very little to focus on. The ultimate conclusion -- "earlier Presidential involvement might have resulted in a more effective response" -- is hardly damning. Perhaps, if Bush had paid attention, Chertoff would have gotten things in order. Come on. It is similar to White House statements this week that the 24 hour delay in figuring out what happened in New Orleans wouldn't have been consequential. Really? For one, all the things that DHS failed to do in activating plans would surely have been done if Chertoff's boss were demanding them. Second, the delays in response were clearly timed to the delays in the knowledge by the White House that the levees had in fact broken.
However helpful this Report may be in figuring out the intricacies of, for example, the Federal Response Plan, it is ultimately a failure in that while it is willing to take on the CEOs of the city and state, it simply eviscerates into platitudes about the President himself. Maybe his information wasn't accurate, the Report notes at one point, signaling that if the President had had better information from Chertoff or Mike Brown (former FEMA head), he would have taken those decisive steps. I was watching the news; what channel were they watching (note -- a great, but time intensive study, would be to see what FOX News was airing Sunday and Monday night.)
It is clear now that the President's disinterest -- remember, he had to be shown a DVD of NO to get him engaged -- led to a passivity on all fronts. The sense of urgency they showed in Iraq, for example, just didn't exist here. Why the House report excuses this might simply be because Chertoff is expendable (he's a lawyer, afterall). And in his defense, Chertoff had, in his Second Year Review announced one month before Hurricane Katrinam that he wanted to re-elevate FEMA so it reported directly to him, an acknowledgement that the plan for FEMA devised by Bush, Cheney and others in their formation of DHS (as well as their appointment of Mike Brown, a holdover when Chertoff got there) wasn't working.
All in all, don't belive the hype about the Republican report. It is partisan, through and through. The passive President is still protected. The Report simply vindicates our low expectations of the person who sits in the White House. Things only might have been different if he were aware of the situation. Unfortunately, that may be true. They might only have been different. And that's the problem.
I wonder if there is anyone in this country who really has any expectations about Bush. Sure, half of the voters voted for him, but I strongly suspect they did so knowing he isn't bright enough to actually be a president. They just liked that he is a Republican and appears to be amiable in person. Plus, most voters have to feel at least his intellectua equal.
So, Bush's passivity towards his job isn't a shock to anyone. After all this is a guy who beds down at 8:00 every night, and spends the mornings in the gym or out jogging. A workaholic he will never be.
Bush's job as President is to stay out of the way as the adults disassemble the government and distribute the spoils to the wealthy backers of the Republicans. He performs that duty very well.
Heckuva Brownie said it would have been pointless to try to involve Chertof in the Katrina management. I'm fairly sure that was a good assessment. But, if that would have been pointless, just how pointless would it have been to try to involve the vacationing Bush? Remember, at that time there were no spoils to be distributed, no no-bid contracts to be let, and no "redevelopment" plans to force on NOLA. So, why would anyone even expect Bush to be interested? It's not like he is a leader or anything like that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 15, 2006 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it Hoppy. Leader. One word. The only one necessary to put the failures of this administration in perspective. And for those who would argue otherwise, the common result of Bush 'leading' has been to find ways to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of Republican supporters. The only thing Bush has led is the stampede of corruption, lawbreaking and distortion of Constitutional intent.
thepeoplechoose
February 16, 2006 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Juliette
It would appear as if the true failure in the Hurricane Katrina case can be pin-pointed to the local government. Governor Blanco in particular is most to blame. Her criminally late mandatory evacuation order (ordered, as we all know, the MORNING OF Hurricane Katrina) all but ensured that the lower classes of New Orleans would be stranded. If the Democrats want to blame the Federal Government and the Bush Administration, fine. After all, Washington always takes credit for the good things and blame for the bad things. But if anyone here expects that Washington should have been in a position to evacuate the entire city of New Orleans within 12 hours, you are unrealistic and idealistic. FEMA's failure did not come into play until AFTER the levy was breached and the city had been flooded. By that point, however, there were still so many people left in the city (due to the Governor's ineptness) that disaster was guaranteed. That is the bottom line here.
February 16, 2006 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you are mistaken. When Governor Blanco declared the situation an emergency the Federal Government in the form of FEMA became the primary agency. This was before the levy breach. There is no doubt that Negrin and Blanco did not distinguish themselves but this was the Federal Governments obligation early in the disaster.
One other point. Lets agree Blanco did a terrible job. It was still obvious a disaster was in the making. Bush is president of the whole country including Louisiana. Why didn't Bush call the governor early on and see what assistance she needed?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 16, 2006 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
--The record shows that a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday, by midday. That is not "on the morning of Hurricane Katrina". The gov. declared a state of emergency on Friday, asked for same, including FEMA assistance, from the White House on Saturday, had achieved partial evacuation by Sunday.
--Evacuations are rarely even close to complete, and depend on transport.
February 16, 2006 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
--Correction:
The mayor ordered mandatory evacuation Sunday morning. Oops.
February 16, 2006 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still keep wondering why the delayed response? We had Coast Guard Helicopters flying all over the place from hour one. Surely if Bush or Chertof really wanted to know, or anyone in the White House who had a doubt, it would have been a simple task to get an immediate assessment.
The passive government is true. These folks are not in a bubble, more like on a mission to Mars or on the Dark Side of the Moon.
February 16, 2006 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel
You are correct that it becomes FEMA's show once the evacuation is ordered, but my point is she ordered it entirely too late. There is just simply no way the entire lower parishes could be evacuated in less than 12 hours. I will readily concede that FEMA dropped the ball in the hours after the levy broke, but chink in the armor that precipitated the disaster was due to the local government. I do not necessarily blame Ray Nagin as much as I do Blanco.
February 16, 2006 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Michael Chertoff is that he is grossly under qualified to run an organization with 180,000 employees and a budget of $40B. The Secretary of the DHS leads an organization comparable in size and scope to a fairly large corporation. Intel, for example, has 90,000 employees and revenues of $38B. It is inconceivable that Michael Chertoff would ever be offered the position of CEO at Intel and it should be inconceivable that he be given the role of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
A wiser man than Chertoff would have recognized his own inexperience and would have declined to become Secretary. A wiser President would have offered the job of Secretary to a person whose skills more closely matched the requirements of the position.
February 16, 2006 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wisdom has nothing to do with this. Remember, Bush and his gang opposed having a Homeland Security department until it was politically expedient to favor it. Then, their focus was on making that department a good place for placing campaign contributers in good jobs, by insisting that the department could not be covered by Civil Service rules. Using the new department as a campaign spoils dump began immediately, and Chertof and Brownie were among those rewarded with good jobs.
Managing the vast bureaucracy was never a concern of Bush and his gang. And, actually getting the Homeland more secure was also never a concern. After all they knew very well that the odds of facing another successful terrorist attack like 9/11 were extremely low, no matter what they did. FEMA just fell through the cracks, so planning for natural disasters also was not a concern for the Bush gang.
The real malfeasance we should be concerned with was by the voters who voted Bush into office, not once by twice. (Ok, so they didn't quite do that, they did come close enough not to matter.) There never was a way to rationally vote for Bush. It was obvious from the time he began to campaign that he was incapable of handling the job, and his past history made it equally obvious that he lacked the judgement and the morals to even try to to handle the job. But, people still voted for him. That was the real crime of the century.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 16, 2006 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's frightening to think the electorate could put these people back in power again. How are we doing when it comes to a paper trail at voting time, Do you know?
February 16, 2006 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush went to the White House saying he was going to govern differently than Clinton. He would not micrmanage the federal government, instead he would run it as a business. Bush was going to be a big picture man, a facilitator. His goal was to model our central government on a large corporation.
Well, he's done that for six years and see where its gotten us. All around the country we see white collar executives on trial for running their company's into the ground....and still making profits. Oh don't I wish that we could put our government's white collar CEO's on trial for running our country into the ground.
americangapper.blogspot.com
February 17, 2006 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have yet to read the report, but does it anywhere suggest that initiative is absolutely essential for the Secretary of a new Department, particularly this one?
At a minimum the President failed to identify and then select a Secretary with a record of initiative in leading in new terroritory. The fact that Katrinia was unprecedented should have been no obstacle to the Secretary of a agency with an unprecedented task.
Last, does anyone have a theory as to why this visual administration was not actively following and looking for the NYC bullhorn mement?
February 18, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink