• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can I quit now?

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
"Can I quit now? Can I come home?" Brown wrote to Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs, the morning of the hurricane.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/03/brown.fema.emails/index.html

It shows one or two things, I think. Either there is no communication between Bush and FEMA, unless Bush just ignores these facts and still tells "Brownie your doin a heckav a job". Or Bush just doesn't feel America is in the need to know if a head of an Agency doesn't care about his job and wants to quit, even if it costs American lives and safety.
 
Last edited:
Bad pick by Bush, maybe even worse then Miers, but that's been taken care of, but feel free to pile it on.
 
If a topics continues to show new intelligence that is either not communicated or ignored by the White house on a situations that harmed/effected more than a million Americans I think it is worth mentioning.
 
Gibberish said:
If a topics continues to show new intelligence that is either not communicated or ignored by the White house on a situations that harmed/effected more than a million Americans I think it is worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

Gibberish, you were correct to post this. It's in the headlines on MSNBC and CNN. I actually feel kinda sorry for Brown because he is looking worse and worse as the facts play out. Didn't he claim that he didn't know about the people in the Superdome? He's a member of the Bush Administration, where honesty is not a requirement (lying is).
 
aps said:
Didn't he claim that he didn't know about the people in the Superdome?
Click to expand...

Yes he did. It seems a lot of the Bush admin tend to bluntly lie to America.

Some examples for backing of my claim, though not the topic of discussion.

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - Vice President Cheney

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” -President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03
 
When people would refer to Bush's intelligence in an unflattering light, I would always counter with the fact that the great presidents were not the intellectuals among us. The best were those that put the right people in the right positions and to delegate authority instead of micromanaging. The Reagan model, as it were. I thought all along Bush fit that mold to a T. Lately, I have had more than a little cause to worry on that account. At least he got Roberts right
 

Agreed. I also believe that when that leader's person that was positioned shows weakness or ill-education in their positions that leader should step forward and rectify the situation. Not ignore it, back the choice, and hope it works out for the best, which seems Bush tries to do.
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
Oh come ON dude!
If Clinton pulled this crap you'd still be talking about it, but since it's your guy it's "It was a mistake, whatever", come ON DUDE, you're not even trying!
Click to expand...

No, no I wouldn't still be talking about it. He sucked at his job, his first major emergency, and he fouled it up good, now he's fired, end of story. Maybe if there were another election coming, this would be worth discussing, but as it stands, it's just piling it on at this point.
 

The problem with your argument is Reagan, as revealed by his personal writings, was a very intelligent individual who had a thirst for knowledge. Don't get me wrong, he had some crazy views like his stories about the supposed "Chicago Welfare Queen" or his remarks about "Polluting Trees", but I think that it would be hard to argue that Reagan did not have a strong grasp of many issues, especially those related to foreign policy.

Our greatest presidents, FDR and Lincoln, were also two of the smartest men that ever held the office.

Bush's problem is that he displays neither exceptional intelligence nor a thirst for knowledge. His Administration has proved itself (until lately), to be really good at politics, but in terms of actually governing, his Administration is probably one of the worst in American history.
 

It's not like the nomination of Brown is an isolated incident, that we should just put behind us now that he's gone. Doesn't it make you wonder how many OTHER incompetent cronies have been appointed to positions of importance, that we won't know about until there is another monumental ****-up?
 

Exactly why this shouldn't be put behind us. It is not like this one thing happened and since then nothing has come up that suggests anyone else is incompetent. The indicments and the nomination of Meirs further show that there could and most likely are others.
 

I would have to agree, Bush has not set himself a part from his administration, this is why he is seen as a puppet for Cheney and others. I can't really defend this assumption, as he seems so lost when he is on his own, and in hostile territory. This is the down side to proping up a politician that appears to be presidential, and has little skeletons in their closet, but then self destructs, very Clintonesque.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…