Adios, Brownie. Perhaps he will find work at the UN.

I wish this were taken a step further, to include liability. I'm an engineer. A computer engineer, but still, I'm an engineer. I know structural engineers, civil, mechanical, chemical, and electrical engineers. The thing you gotta remember is, if you design a bridge or a house that falls, or a circuit that catches fire, or a chemical that disperses into air and is toxic, your ass is grass.

This guy padded his resume to get a job where he was responsible for the lives of Americans. When the time came to act, he was incompetent. He should be thrown in jail.

Firing him just isn't enough. He was criminally negligent.

...and a week or so from now, when everyone finds out that the head of FEMA (or any government agency, for that matter) doesn't really do that much except sign forms and checks, that the folks in the middle ranks were doing a good job, and that 90% of the actual work in a disaster is not in FEMA's direct control anyway, it's not going to make any real difference.

Brown's biggest sin was giving bad press confrences.

"Brown's biggest sin was giving bad press confrences."

Absolutely. And in Washington DC, that's a Capital offense.

Tob

If you want to know some personal comments of people who have worked previously with Mike Brown... this is quite illuminating...:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/2/34622/68348

He shouldn't have been fired three days ago... he should have never been hired. My question is: How many more people are running complex and expert positions in our government who have been appointed because of personal connections to the president as opposed to actual experience or skill?

These are scary times.

Hasn't anyone here ever seen the BBC show "Yes, Minister?"

Same thing.

Blaming Brown for this is like blaming the little chrome dog on the hood when you get run over by a Mack truck.

How many more people are running complex and expert positions in our government who have been appointed because of personal connections to the president as opposed to actual experience or skill?

I asked that same thing upon hearing about Joycelyn Elders being appointed surgeon general in 1993. You?

I have to agree with cirby, Brown has been terrible on TV but I think the jury is still out on FEMA's overall response. Check out Diana West's op-ed in the Washington Time's. Also, some of Time Magazine's sources appear to be walking back some of their statements re: Brown (courtesy NRO).

Having been in the Army for 20 years and a firefighter for 10, I know what it's like to have to deal with unrealistic sop's that are half operational and half cya. That's what you end up with when you have politicians and the media (including well meaning bloggers) running around yelling, "off with their heads".

It's in everbody's best interest (especially first responder's) to let some of the emotions clear and find out how we can really fix what's broken. And for God's sake, not another 911 commission.

Just thinking out loud.

Just to be accurate, Brown was not fired from FEMA, he was replaced as the lead on Katrina.

He's still in charge at FEMA and we're only half way through the hurricane season.

Keep in mind also that Brown was confirmed by the Senate for his position, with no negative issues from either side of the aisle, back in 2001.

Department heads are figureheads, and giving bad press conferences means you lose your head.

/just sayin'

Those Press Conferences were not just bad, they were spectacularly bad. Through Brown, this administration came off as detached and clueless, instead of engaged and empathetic.

Though much of the trouble rests with State and local officials, the failure to establish a close and seamless working relationship has to rest at least in part with FEMA. Failure do to this, at minimum, is failure indeed. It takes two to Tango.

Ultimately, at critical points when even minutes count, we ended up with more paralysis than action. At a time when millions looked to be reassured by Uncle Sam, he blinked.

With all due respect, most Lawyers simply do not have a bias for action. Their advisory role is usually to urge caution and to point out potential legal pitfalls and entanglements. Most would agree that what had here was an excess of caution about various Acts and restrictions.

At FEMA, it should be in with the Generals and out with the Lawyers.

Of course, changes to FEMA's duties were already in the works, as of about two months back. DHS is in the process of scaling FEMA back to response and recovery, and is moving their preparedness and training functions over to a new Directorate for Preparedness.

(For more details, see the first post on my blog)

Not so fast about the resume padding accusations, folks.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_04_corner-archive.asp#076064

"I asked that same thing upon hearing about Joycelyn Elders being appointed surgeon general in 1993. You?"

Boy, there's a nice gratuitous swipe that's apropos of nothing. And by the way, Jocelyn Elders was a doctor of medicine, a medical school professor, pediatric endocrinologist, and the Director of the Arkansas Department of Health. You may not have liked the job she did as surgeon general, but please point out to me what part of that resume stacks up with being Joe Allbaugh's college roommate, which was Brown's only qualification for joining FEMA. If Bush put forth someone with Elders' credentials to be surgeon general, I suppose your first response would be "Why is he nominating that unqualfied hack?"

no Chris, that would be your response. Remember the response about Roberts.

Holy hell talk about someone who deserves a slot and definitely has the qualifications.

BUT HE'S CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!!!

Since when is being liberal a requisite for a post in public office?

read carefully boys..."being removed from his role managing Hurricane Katrina relief efforts" - it didn't say he was fired - only that he was going back to Washington...probably to receive his Medal of Freedom...or a post at the UN...but you can bet that his next position will be higher up than the one he has now.

this just means he is available to screw up the east coast when ophelia hits.

I hear he's going to work on that bridge in Iraq that had a railing fail on it.

Three words of advice to Iraqis: learn to swim.

(or fly)

dean:

What, specifically, has Brown screwed up so far, other than press conferences?

Make sure you know what FEMA actually *does* before you make your list, too. "Send in the National Guard" is not an option. Neither is "send in the Red Cross" or "have the Louisiana politicians fired and replaced."

I'd like some specifics, too, please.

"no Chris, that would be your response. Remember the response about Roberts.

Holy hell talk about someone who deserves a slot and definitely has the qualifications."

So McGehee brings up Elders as an example of someone who's as unqualified as Brown, and when I refute that, you tell me I would take McGehee's stance. Based on what?

And as far as Roberts goes (since you bring it up) he may well be a fine, or at least tolerable, justice. The way it works is when the President nominates a justice, the other party puts on pressure to make sure the court's not being moved too far to one wing or the other. That's just the way it works. I'd say the Senate Dems have gone pretty easy on Roberts so far.

Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to the guy (he wouldn't be my pick but I understand the Repubs get to do the picking) just exactly what makes him so qualified? With almost no record of judicial decisions to go by, and the convenient excuse that he can walk away from anything he's ever written because he was just acting as a lawyer, what is it that makes him this "My God we're so lucky to get him" nominee? That he's pleasant looking? He could just as easily be a Souter as a Scalia.

Dr. Elders may have been incompetent but she did make us feel ok about pleasuring ourselves.

Maybe thats what the Mayor was doing while the Hurricane was bearing down.

How many more people are running complex and expert positions in our government who have been appointed because of personal connections to the president as opposed to actual experience or skill?

Its not a bad thing to hire someone you know. But I get the sense that the neo-cons in this administration value allegiance over abilities.

There are ton's of examples of critical appointments going to people with 0 experience. For example, John McCain, when complainig that billions of dollars are missing, noted that many of the people that Bush appointed to oversee Iraq's rebuilding had no experience. Take Scott Erwin (previously an intern to Dick Cheney) for example. He was put in charge of "management of finances and budgeting for the domestic security forces." The college senior's favorite job before that one? (I'm not making this up) "My time as an ice-cream truck driver." He had just applied for a job at the white house - not to rebuild Iraq.

(see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6930.htm )

It makes sense when Bush said "Brownie is doing a heck of a job." When your goal is to make ALL appointments "yes-men" then you cripple your organization. The the neo-cons in government have been completely isolated from reality by toadies.
( http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush122900.htm )

Its gotten to be so bad that Scientists, Doctors, and other professionals have drafted letters over the past few years complaining about issues just like what we saw with Brownie.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060201.html
http://www.macminute.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=250193&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=

Now that the disaster has happened, people care about if a toadie is appointed to FEMA. What about FDA (food and drug)? Do you care if drugs are getting through because scientists are pressured to fake data? (true!) If you are going to build the infrastructure of a bridge (or country) - you don't replace all the load-bearing beams (or wonks) with ones that can't hold up the weight (or toadies).

From the FEMA Website:

"FEMA's continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident."

FEMA failed in the preparation phase and FEMA failed in managing the federal response.

Competent preparation would have meant working out the local/state/federal roles IN ADVANCE of a flood in New Orleans.

Communications, security, and water resources should have been positioned outside the storm track (in Texas for example) and should have started rolling toward the city as soon as the storm was over. FEMA could have coordinated that.

FEMA should have worked WITH local and state authorities instead of engaging in petty and personal fights with government officials.

FEMA should have acted immediately to evacuate the Superdome after the storm (this would have meant COOPERATION not bureaucratic turf fights.

In the end, FEMA failed in both of its missions. However they were under an unimaginable pressure from Chertoff and the neocons in the white house to hold firm with the Governor and to not budge on the Nationalization of the Guard. You have to feel some pity for Brown, he was over his head and his bosses had knives in his back.

In the end the buck stops with the President. He should be in charge, asking hard questions, demanding real answers. But we don't seem to have that kind of President.

I'll repeat what I posted on another thread:

"As of June 22, 2005, Brown had successfully directed 164 presidentially declared disasters and emergencies under a newly formed infrastructure that had no historical precedent in this country with which to relate. There have been other natural disasters and incidents since to boost that count. He has directed many hurricanes with nary a criticism. Now, he's an incompetant boob? Try again."

The President has shifted some chairs due to wailing from what I might consider a collection of the ignorant, the passionate, the partisan, the well-intentioned, and the reactionary. I don't know that it was necessary but it is politically expedient... and apparently, that is all that matters in this "shoot first and ask questions later" mantra our collective activism promotes.

Were mistakes made? Assuredly. And you can bet they were made at all levels by just about everyone. More will be made. Culpability should certainly be shared but, eventually, one or two parties receive the most, deserved or not.

There is a difference between mistakes and incompetence, however, and we should not forget that particularly when one considers the scale of this event. It was historic and not a trivial consideration. No one, and I mean no one, was prepared for this scale though our collective response to it has been amazing. That response didn't just spontaneously appear. Some organization and infrastructure was present and to ignore it would be self-imposed blindness approaching a Category 5 despite logistical delays that are manifestly impossible to foresee or forestall. The emphasis of our "blame", since it is apparent that it's the currency we love to exchange, should be towards the steps taken or not taken prior to the storm. The press can take a story and blow it to the highest proportions and it becomes the signature of the tragedy, nevermind the thousands of other stories of equal if not more merit that do not strike their fancy.

Not everything that has happened has been wrong. The human response has been magnificent. Countless agencies and individuals have been heroic and steadfast... and they made mistakes too only a camera and a gaggle of reporters weren't there to record it and replay it every hour on the hour.

Further, and this will not be popular but it is valid - too many individuals failed to follow common sense. I refuse to accept that such large numbers of people were so incapable of preparing themselves better or leaving the situation. Very few individuals are that inept. In fact we hear stories now of people who still will not leave their homes. People are free to make choices in this country, both good and bad. Call it Social Darwinism if you like. We are a better country for it despite its imperfection too.

Individual responsibility mandates that one act beyond childishness. Little discussed is the option people had in spite of government warnings. Does everyone need a memo or public proclamation to function every day? Was not practically everyone aware of the magnitude of this storm bearing down on them? Did they have to wait for the Mayor or Governor to direct them to leave their abode? Since the storyline driven has been the city of New Orleans (to the detriment of all other locales), is it not a major metropolitan city? Didn't everyone have ready access to information?

It may be unpopular to ask but where is all of that personal responsibility? I understand that some did try and were just incapable of better preparation, but I believe that number to be implicitly small and explicitly over-emphasized by a media hungry for the most exploitable and profitable angles. It would be my estimation that too many thought of riding this storm out like so many before and that complacency overwhelmed logic. Tragedy inevitably followed. I'm not sure I would have been one to leave either, so I don't absolve myself from the possibility that I might make such a poor choice. What I wouldn't do is lay blame at the feet of the government for my poor judgement. Fortunately, I'm not observing that too much from the victims. Maybe it's a tangible that has been recorded but I'm just not seeing it. What I am seeing is some polticians, the media, the bloggers, and the blog posters (I confess) dispensing blame like they are life preservers. In our rush to judgement we make or demand condemnations based on limited knowledge. Such behavior is irresponsible too and does not necessarily enlighten our understanding of things or focus energy on the appropriate targets. We should be more cautious.

So what does that diversion have to do with Mr. Brown or any public figure? Individuals either as "victim" or as rubbernecker should not jump to conclusions based on incomplete, inadequate, or absent facts supporting such claims. A poor presentation in front of a camera is not damning evidence. Hearsay is not damning evidence. Signed paper trails are. Legal documents and the recorded response to them are. Let's remember to refer to them when we pontificate from afar "incompetence". Let's also remember that personal responsibility was the first barrier to be breached by many of the victims and it is the last barrier to be breached by us Monday morning quarterbackers.

Paul,

I do not share your views as to Mr. B. I rather agree with AnonymousDrivel. To me, in this instance you are acting no better than a Bush basher with different motives.

I still don't get what exactly FEMA failed to do, and specifically M. Brown. Let's remember this was you know, a disaster, and terrible things happen in disasters, things don't always work out the way you would like them to in disasters, some
people actually die in disasters. And why exactly
are Blanco and Nagin getting a free pass from the media, disaster planning and preparedness are bottom up afairs, local, state then fed. It's
clear from everything that is coming out
there seems to have been a total failure at the state level an abdication at the local level and
a perceptually slow response at the fed level.

I too await true evidence that FEMA failed.

I would think that the fact that our incident response did well despite the political barriers that sprung up. The whole incident response command thing is FEMA driven - and that structure is working. The commander has been replaced with another more appropriate individual, but that's the normal chain of events in disaster response.

Name any other country or region that has suffered as devastating a disaster and marshalled as aggressive a reaction with as proportionally or numerically as few casualties.

I am waiting...

Chris, Elders became a national embarrassment. It took Clinton years to finally get around to firing her in spite of that fact.

I still haven't seen anything substantive that argued she was qualified even to be Arkansas surgeon general, let alone U.S. surgeon general. About the only thing I was ever able to figure out was, if she was SG she would be too busy being an addle-brained figurehead and never put any actual patients at risk of death or dismemberment through her obvious stupidity.

Given what's being said about Brown (especially the backing off of the resume-padding allegations), what exactly is so different between Elders' actual record, and what people are saying about Brown?

I too am waiting for specifics as to the the failures attributed to FEMA and Mr. Brown. I've watched this witch hunt for days and perhaps I'm not reading the right sites.

Jack,

Everything you list in your post above was either out of FEMA's control ("evacuate the Superdome" wasn't an option without deposing Blanco, for example) or was done quite well.

All of the direct failures you mention were at the local level, and have been so well-documented that it's pretty shocking that you have to guys to pretend it was FEMA's responsibility (the completely silly "turf wars" idea).

To those who want some specifics:

Trent Lott and other Republicans from Mississippi (no Democrats as far as the eye can see) stated that Brown almost always said "NO" to any request, preferring instead to wrap himself in legal details and process issues.

There was a failure to properly assess and understand the situation in the Superdome and the Convention Center, when almost everyone else in the country did. While these problems were not caused by FEMA, Brown evidently was not in sufficient contact with local and State officials, and the Red Cross. While FEMA is not a first responder, managing communications and having situational awareness ARE PRIME RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEMA.

To a lesser extent, FEMA has input to the emergency evacuation plans of NO. Of all places, NO needed a locked-in airtight evacuation plan, not "everyone to the Superdome, you are on your own." FEMA is charged with oversight and help with testing and training of these plans. Brown's response: "We didn't have funding to finish that."

One year ago, after a simulation showed that a direct cat 5 hit might kill 100K, FEMA should have put this right at the top of the list. Had Brown stressed this, the small amount of funding needed for more testing, better training and a bulletproof plan would have been found.

The time to expose weakness in plans and local and State leaders is before the crisis. Claiming a lack of funding is a crutch.

In 1997, fearing a system failure from Y2K, Federal regulators forced the Utilities and the finacial sector to undergo rigorous testing and certification.

Pointing fingers in all directions after a failure is no way to live. All have to step up to the responsibility and FEMA is in the best position to do this.

Simply stating a lack of funding - when your own testing demonstrated a glaring weakness - is not sufficient.

I think I'm starting to smell the next round of "Rove Refutations" - "you expect too much from FEMA."

Sorry Karl, that one is a looser from the get-go. It sounds an awful lot like "this is HARD WORK!"

Defending FEMA is a bit of a lost cause here. FEMA is about to undergo some radical restructuring and the conservative/neocon bastion is a little nervous about where things are going to land. They've built themselves a nice little fiefdom at DHS and don't like outsiders messing with things. Should be interesting.

Again, there are 2 reasons FEMA is taking the heat.

1. FEMA is the public face of the administration in a disaster situation. When the response fails - as it so obviously did at the Superdome and Convention Center - people hold FEMA responsible.

2. People in other states know they will need FEMA in an emergen