SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (252034)9/20/2005 12:56:04 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1578134
 
Tell me, o brilliant one, what is wrong with your president and FEMA? Why can't they get this recovery effort under control? We are looking more and more like third world!

***********************************************************

19 September 2005

EXCLUSIVE: UP IN FLAMES

Tons of British aid donated to help Hurricane Katrina victims to be BURNED by Americans

From Ryan Parry, US Correspondent in New York

HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned.

US red tape is stopping it from reaching hungry evacuees.


Instead tons of the badly needed Nato ration packs, the same as those eaten by British troops in Iraq, has been condemned as unfit for human consumption.

And unless the bureaucratic mess is cleared up soon it could be sent for incineration.

One British aid worker last night called the move "sickening senselessness" and said furious colleagues were "spitting blood".

The food, which cost British taxpayers millions, is sitting idle in a huge warehouse after the Food and Drug Agency recalled it when it had already left to be distributed.

Scores of lorries headed back to a warehouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, to dump it at an FDA incineration plant.


The Ministry of Defence in London said last night that 400,000 operational ration packs had been shipped to the US.

But officials blamed the US Department of Agriculture, which impounded the shipment under regulations relating to the import and export of meat.

The aid worker, who would not be named, said: "This is the most appalling act of sickening senselessness while people starve.


"The FDA has recalled aid from Britain because it has been condemned as unfit for human consumption, despite the fact that these are Nato approved rations of exactly the same type fed to British soldiers in Iraq.

"Under Nato, American soldiers are also entitled to eat such rations, yet the starving of the American South will see them go up in smoke because of FDA red tape madness."

The worker added: "There will be a cloud of smoke above Little Rock soon - of burned food, of anger and of shame that the world's richest nation couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery and lets Americans starve while they arrogantly observe petty regulations.

"Everyone is revolted by the chaotic shambles the US is making of this crisis. Guys from Unicef are walking around spitting blood.


"This is utter madness. People have worked their socks off to get food into the region.

"It is perfectly good Nato approved food of the type British servicemen have. Yet the FDA are saying that because there is a meat content and it has come from Britain it must be destroyed.

"If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years."

The Ministry of Defence said: "We understand there was a glitch and these packs have been impounded by the US Department of Agriculture under regulations relating to the import and export of meat.

"The situation is changing all the time and at our last meeting on Friday we were told progress was being made in relation to the release of these packs. The Americans certainly haven't indicated to us that there are any more problems and they haven't asked us to take them back."

Food from Spain and Italy is also being held because it fails to meet US standards and has been judged unfit for human consumption.

And Israeli relief agencies are furious that thousands of gallons of pear juice are to be destroyed because it has been judged unfit.


The FDA said: "We did inspect some MREs (meals ready to eat) on September 13. They are the only MREs we looked at. There were 70 huge pallets of vegetarian MREs.

"They were from a foreign nation. We inspected them and then released them for distribution."

mirror.co.uk



To: i-node who wrote (252034)9/20/2005 1:01:50 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1578134
 
Bush administration paradox explained

Robert B. Reich

Monday, September 19, 2005

The White House's strategy to make John Roberts the next chief justice has been the very model of meticulous planning, by contrast to its utter clueless-ness in dealing with Katrina. No White House in modern history has been as adept at politics and as ham-fisted at governing. Why?

With politics, the Bush administration has shown remarkable discipline -- squelching leaks and keeping Cabinet members on message, reaching down into the bureaucracy to bend analyses in directions that supports what it wants to do, imposing its will on congressional leaders and even making a political imprint on state legislatures. No recent president has got re-elected with controlling majorities in both houses of Congress, or been as successful in repositioning the national debate around his ideological view of the world.

With governing, it's been almost criminally incompetent -- failing to act on clear predictions of a terrorist attack like 9/11 or a natural disaster like Katrina, botching intelligence over Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction, failing to secure order after invading Iraq, allowing prisoners of war to be tortured, losing complete control over the federal budget, creating a bizarre Medicare drug benefit from which the elderly are now fleeing, barely responding to the wave of corporate lootings and running the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the ground. Not since the hapless administration of Warren G. Harding has there been one as stunningly inept as this one.

The easy answer to the paradox is that Bush cares about winning elections and putting his ideological stamp on the nation, but doesn't give a hoot about governing the place. But that's no explanation because the two are so obviously connected. An administration can't impose a lasting stamp without being managed well, and a president's party can't keep winning elections if the public thinks it's composed of bumbling idiots.

The real answer is that the same discipline and organization that's made the White House into a hugely effective political machine has hobbled its capacity to govern. Blocking data from lower-level political appointees and civil servants that's inconsistent with what it wants to do or sheds doubt on its wisdom, for example, may be effective politics, in the short term. It keeps the media and the opposition party at bay.


But the same squelching of troublesome information prevents top policy makers from ever getting the data they need. Operatives in the CIA suspected Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction and personnel at the Department of State knew the plan to invade Iraq was seriously flawed, but such judgments were suppressed by a White House that made perfectly clear what it wanted and didn't want to hear. Career professionals at the CIA and the Department of State are now wary of sharing what they know with appointed officials, as are scientists and experts all over the federal government.

Similarly, a White House whose Cabinet officers all deliver the same, positive lines can be a formidable message machine. But this same discipline also discourages internal dissent, for the simple reason that in Washington nothing stays completely private. The predictable result is that Bush officials have become yes-men incapable of sounding alarms. The price of dissent is high. Soon after Glenn Hubbard, then chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, warned that the cost of the Iraqi war would be in the range of $200 billion -- almost exactly what it's cost so far -- he was fired. After Paul O'Neill, his Secretary of the Treasury, worried out loud that federal budget deficits didn't seem to matter any longer -- a prescient concern -- he was fired, too. Can it be any wonder why this president doesn't seem to get it?

Political discipline is also honed when the White House staffs agencies with people loyal to the president, along with loyalists' friends. Joe Allbaugh worked as W's chief of staff when he was Texas governor and his 2000 campaign manager, so it seemed perfectly natural to put Allbaugh's college buddy, Michael Brown, in charge of FEMA even though "Brownie" had no previous experience in disaster management. FEMA's acting deputy director and its acting deputy chief of staff had no relevant experience, either; both had been advance men in the White House. Given this, no one should be surprised that FEMA so badly bungled Katrina. Brownie is gone now, but the administration is still crawling with cronies who know their politics, but don't have a clue what they're supposed to manage.

Politics first, competence last: That's the Bush administration all over. Karl Rove, Bush's brain and deputy chief of staff, is in charge of the political juggernaut that's substituted for effective governance. Presumably, he's now at work on a plan to burnish the image of Republicans as managers of the public's business so they don't the hell beaten out of them in the mid-terms a year from now. But the harder Rove works at spinning what this White House has accomplished, the more likely it is that Americans will see that what it's accomplished is basically spin.

Robert B. Reich was U.S. Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, and co-founder of the American Prospect magazine, from whose October issue this is adapted.

sfgate.com



To: i-node who wrote (252034)9/21/2005 12:00:24 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1578134
 
Katrina Adds to Public Doubts About Bush

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

(09-21) 03:44 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Hurricane Katrina did more than wipe out much of the Mississippi coastline and flood New Orleans. The storm and the bungled government response eroded President Bush's political standing and dampened enthusiasm for his second-term agenda.

An AP-Ipsos poll shows a sharp increase since the storm in the percentage of people who are most worried about the economy. Fewer than half approve of Bush's handling of Katrina, and almost two-thirds question the amount of money spent by the administration on the Iraq war.

"The problem is not Katrina, the root of the problem is Iraq," said Chris DePino, a Republican consultant in New Haven, Conn. "The Katrina issue is complicating the public relations nightmare that is Iraq."

DePino praised Bush but said, "It is very hard to put a good face on death and destruction."


Katrina, Iraq and the economy are eclipsing issues like Social Security and taxes — top priorities for the Bush administration's second term. Social Security and taxes are ranked near the bottom of public concerns, the poll found.

Given several choices to raise government money for Katrina recovery, people most often chose reduced spending on Iraq — named by 42 percent. About three in 10, 29 percent, wanted to delay or cancel Republican tax cuts. That's seven in 10 backing options that Bush doesn't even have on the table.

"This is the most important intersection of his presidency," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican.


For the first time, senior Republican consultants and lawmakers are warning the White House that Bush's base is perilously close to deserting him. With nearly all Democrats and two-thirds of independents soured on his presidency, Bush needs to hang onto the large majority of Republicans who back him — 86 percent in the AP-Ipsos poll.

Republicans and independents with a strong Republican leaning account for most of the 40 percent who say they approve of Bush's performance.

Two upcoming presidential decisions threaten to divide the GOP coalition: Bush's nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and his plans for Katrina spending.

Social conservatives are demanding an anti-abortion Supreme Court justice. Some Republicans want him to select a woman or minority and perhaps avoid a bitter fight by selecting a relative moderate.

On Katrina funding, fiscal conservatives are insisting that Bush find spending cuts in programs such as Medicare to offset the estimated costs that could grow to $200 billion. Budget cuts could be risky — only one in 10 favored that approach to finding money for storm recovery, the poll found.

"I don't know where they're going to come up with this money they're talking about," said Jeanne Wright, 67, a Republican-leaning voter from Manchester, Conn.

For some core Bush supporters like Lloyd Horton of Kingsport, Tenn., the idea of spending billions of federal tax dollars rebuilding the hurricane zone is not appealing.

"I don't lay it at the feet of the president," said Horton, who describes his political leaning only as conservative. "There's great number of people who would say it's not the responsibility of the people of Tennessee to rebuild New Orleans. I'm not in favor of handing out money to people."

Bush's best hope may be that Democrats miscalculate as they struggle to find a unified voice after Katrina.


Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., gave a blistering critique of the president on Monday, and another presidential prospect, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has called for an independent commission to investigate the government's initial response.

Her husband, former President Clinton, has criticized the Bush administration while still helping the president and his father raise money for Katrina's victims.

Some Democratic voters are even more critical than their leaders when talking about Bush.

"Mostly he's trying to save face," said Susan Hopkins, a Democrat from Eureka Springs, Ark. "He wants to throw a lot of money at something with no idea of where he's going."


The poll of 1,000 adults conducted by Ipsos, an international polling company, had a margin of potential sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

sfgate.com