<p>Exaggerating it in what way? All I’ve said is that he ignored the recommendations, firefighters died because of it, and he lied about why the recommendation wasn’t implemented. All of that is bare, documented fact. </p>
<p>It reflects unfavorably on Giuliani because what he did was unfavorable. Any “discredit” is self-inflicted. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The bigger picture? A guy who can’t even get the radios right, or tell the truth about it, isn’t going to be capable of handling anything more complex, much less “the bigger picture.”</p>
<p>Do you really think handling our nation’s security is less complicated than buying new radios for one city’s fire department and teaching people to use them? It would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so grave.</p>
<hr>
<p>What this really illustrates is that many Republicans would rather have someone who looks good in a suit and spins palatable excuses/outright lies than someone who gets the job done.</p>
<p>The Republicans have no standing to talk about playing defense. Or, are you suggesting that the Department of Homeland Security went on the “offense” when Katrina hit?</p>
<p>“You’re doin’ a great job, Brownie.”</p>
<p>We are talking basic government competence. The Republicans have become the party of incompetence and corruption – two words that pretty much characterize Rudy’s radio problem.</p>
<p>Ah, Katrina. Yeah, Bush was a fool not to prevent that one. That sure is the same thing as Slick Willy not killing Bin laden.</p>
<p>And you can take my silence on the Bernie affair as the extent to which I care about what goes on in Mr. Guliani’s bedroom.</p>
<p>While I dont agree on Giuliani’s policy stances on family issues such as abortion, they’re at least more sensible than those held by Hillary. (who called the ban on pulling babies halfway out of the womb, sticking scissors in their skull, and vacuuming up the pieces “an erosion of our constitutional rights”)</p>
<p>Wow. Are you familiar with the issues at all? </p>
<p>Including that once FEMA was put in charge, they grounded the civilian search and rescue and refused to allow other federal agencies to participate in search and rescue, even though people were still dying of dehydration on their rooftops and in their attics? </p>
<p>Among the resources they refused to allow to help were fully equipped teams of Wildlife and Fisheries agents specially trained in urban search and rescue.</p>
<p>Let me summarize this for you: When the feds were put in charge, they used their newfound control of the situation to block search and rescue efforts, even as people were still dying for want of rescue.</p>
<p>You clearly didn’t get what I was saying. While the aftermath of katrina was ugly, I agree, I was pointing out that bringing it up as a counterexample to me faulting Bill Clinton for not pre-emptively catching OBL is pretty damn disingenusous considering hurricanes are natural disasters.</p>
<p>No, but I might hire a guy who couldn’t stop an arsonist from burning the house he built down, and who wasn’t impervious to criticism by legions of people who already don’t like him because of his political affiliation.</p>
<p>Katrina was easily forseeable. In fact, it was foreseen. The feds had participated in a Hurricane Pam exercise simulating exactly the conditions we faced. Even more–Bush himself was personally briefed by the head of the National Weather Service on what would happen when Katrina made landfall. </p>
<p>And Katrina still caught them unprepared. What did Bush say: “No one could have predicted that the levees would be breached”? </p>
<p>The feds had advance warning and failed to respond in any meaningful way. They didn’t implement anything that came out of the Hurricane Pam scenario. Worse, they obstructed the efforts of those who did have a competent response. </p>
<p>If they can’t make any meaningful preparations or competent response to a disaster that they KNEW was coming, how can you credibly expect them to have any effective response to a surprise attack? Do you really think terrorists are going to broadcast their plans on national TV 24 hours or more in advance? It’s ludicrous.</p>
<p>Yeah, we know. Even if the guy knew in advance when and where the arsonist was going to strike, and didn’t bother to call the police, hide the gasoline stored on the property, get out the valuables, etc., you would still vote for him as long as he had an R by his name.</p>
<p>You clearly don’t understand the difference between pre-empting disaster and reacting to it. I’ve got work to finish, we’ll get back to katrina tomorrow.</p>
<p>Wow, are you really in the “Bush and the CIA knew about 9/11 ahead of time/casued it” camp? If so, there’s no amount of persuasion I could use to overcome that mass of ignorance.</p>
<p>No one said you could pre-empt a hurricane. But you can prepare. </p>
<p>If you knew anything about hurricanes at all, you would know that effective preparations can head off the worst effects. </p>
<p>In general, you’ll find that preparing adequately for something is actually easier than trying to pre-empt it. So no one who can’t do the former is likely to be successful at the latter.</p>
<p>You’re trying to convince me that someone isn’t even competent to order a radio can, by virtue of a magic “R” behind his name, prevent terrorists from striking anywhere in the US. Sorry, it doesn’t compute.</p>
<p>Management is all about details and accountability. If you can’t manage something simple, there is no way you can manage something complex.</p>
<p>Do you or do you not believe Bush and the CIA knew about 9/11 ahead of time/caused it.</p>
<p>I need to know, because if you really think that, then there are countless better things I could be doing with my time, including explaining rayleigh scattering to my dog.</p>
<p>Of course I don’t believe that. It’s sickening that you would even make such an accusation about me.</p>
<p>I realise from the kind of arguments you use that you’re a child and not a parent, but still, there should be limits. Just making up a ridiculous position and demanding that a poster deny it is one of them.</p>
<p>Okay, you got mixed up then in the course of our little analogy.</p>
<p>You wrote: “Yeah, we know. Even if the guy knew in advance when and where the arsonist was going to strike, and didn’t bother to call the police, hide the gasoline stored on the property, get out the valuables, etc., you would still vote for him as long as he had an R by his name.”</p>
<p>The analogy (that you made) was in reference to Guilani and 9/11, not katrina. By saying “knowing where the arsonist was going to strike” I thought you were inferring Guiliani and Bush knew the WTC were about to be attacked.</p>
<p>BTW, what you think you “realise” about my age is of no consequence to the topic at hand, its a pretty blatant non sequitur.</p>
<p>My comment was about failure to take reasonable precautions in the face of foreseeable problems. </p>
<p>Like not buying new radios, when a previous disaster made it obvious how badly they were needed–and the recommendation had been made very explicitly by the US Fire Administration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was entirely relevent to the immature tactic that was being used to attack me. As well as to some of the excuses for Giuliani and your pretending that I said “all the other mayors” had them.</p>
<p>I have never ever understood how after 9/11 no plan was made for when terrorists bombed the levees. Of course we should have thought the levees might be breeched. Perhaps not by hurricanes, but certainly by terrorists.</p>