Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

I don't think it will even affect the moderates, to be honest. It just gives the radicals ammunition to feed into the narrative that "America doesn't think you are human" narrative they like to push. It might get some who don't understand the world a reason to fight back. Sort of like appealing to the uneducated in order to get elected. Sort of electing a gakstain like Trump, in other words.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

With the bravado and haste in which it was signed and the apparently completely unorganized way it was executed, and with the way some on the right joyfully reacted to it and the discriminatory way the left portrayed it, I suspect that it will not be particularly helpful to US interests.

There were a lot of ways the administration could have enacted this which would have sidestepped most of the problems people had with it, but they chose not to.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

Oh, absolutely not. Which is probably what Bannon, Flynn, and Trump's other cronies want, because then they have more scapegoats and ways to induce fear in the country.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.

And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.

You want to make the guardsmen walk with sand bags? What did they do to piss you off?

 AdeptSister wrote:
Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

It will reduce the refugee terrorism from zero to, uh... zero-er!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.

Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?

There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.

Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?

Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.

And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.

You want to make the guardsmen walk with sand bags? What did they do to piss you off?

Nothing. They are strong and smart. They use their leg muscles. And their rhinos. Also, who cares? they are the guard. They are the emperors chaff.

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.

The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.

 Frazzled wrote:

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.

The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.

I think you might be right, be in this case, would anybody have disagreed? An EO done the way an EO should be done and for the purpose EO's exist? Maybe. Take them to court later.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/02/congress_overturns_rule_that_b.html

So, after Flint, it is good to see the R's learned about the importance of clean water.....

Republicans this week kicked off their drive to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations by repealing a "Stream Protection Rule" meant to keep coal mines from dumping waste into streams.

The U.S. Senate approved the measure Thursday in a 54 to 45 vote that went largely along party lines, with backing from Ohio GOP Sen. Rob Portman, and a "no" vote from Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

The House of Representatives approved it 228 to 194 on Wednesday, with support from all Ohio's Republicans and opposition from all of the state's Democrats.

 Frazzled wrote:

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.

The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.

You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.

President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...

Wiki... as a decent writeup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

Firstly the E.O order isn't a Muslim Ban as the media protests, because it bars entry all faiths of the nationalities of said countries. Will it make the USA safer? That is negligible, on the one hand yes some of those countries are in a mess fighting internal extremism and it would make it harder for an extremist to enter the USA legally. However a known terrorist would never make it through airport security. The fact of the matter is a terrorist is more than likely to enter illegally to avoid detection. The rule of thumb being if a terrorist wants to get in they will find a way. At least it shows Trump wants to cut down the possibility of foreign terrorism occurring on American soil, if the results are extremely limited of being effective.

Ray Nagin is now conveniently serving a dime in the Fed for 21 counts of pre and post Katrina corruption.

If I were in favor of capital punishment, that's the kind of crime I'd reserve it for.

 infinite_array wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Wasn't it only like 1 person who got arrested over the UC Berkeley riots? I could be the victim of fake news here.

It looks like it may be up to three people.

http://abc7news.com/news/3-arrested-in-violent-protest-at-uc-berkeley/1734579/

Very problematic..lack of consequences will only encourage further acts of violence and mayhem.

So The Massachusetts sheriff offers jail inmates to build Mexican border wall?

Is... isn't that slave labor?

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.

The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.

You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.

President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...

Wiki... as a decent writeup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.

Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.

They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.

Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.

Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.

Well, Dakka itself is very obscure. I'd never heard of him until he started making news due to all the protests, peaceful and non-peaceful.

I've never heard of John Thune before either, but I'm sure if protested started popping up against him all over the place I would. Something about not feeding the trolls...

 jasper76 wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Wasn't it only like 1 person who got arrested over the UC Berkeley riots? I could be the victim of fake news here.

It looks like it may be up to three people.

http://abc7news.com/news/3-arrested-in-violent-protest-at-uc-berkeley/1734579/

Very problematic..lack of consequences will only encourage further acts of violence and mayhem.

They arrested three people, sounds like they're facing consquences, unless we're just sad the police didn't round up everyone there over an incident that ultimately was less intense than what happens on many campuses after some sporting events

I mean, it's not like they staged and armed takeover of a federal facility and beat the rap...

 Vash108 wrote:
So The Massachusetts sheriff offers jail inmates to build Mexican border wall?

Is... isn't that slave labor?

In a court of law no, because whilst serving time inmates from different prisons in the US and around the world do work for community projects as part of their sentence. Building a wall is juristically the same as what the chain gains used to do building the public highways and landscaping for the community. It would be slave labour if they were forced to work extreme hours in appalling conditions, but that will not be the case. For some prisoners, they may enjoy a chance to do something different in the fresh air outside of prison walls, even if it is monotonous work.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.

They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.

Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.

Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.

Well, Dakka itself is very obscure. I'd never heard of him until he started making news due to all the protests, peaceful and non-peaceful.

I've never heard of John Thune before either, but I'm sure if protested started popping up against him all over the place I would. Something about not feeding the trolls...

I get the idea of not feeding the trolls, but you get the idea of not shutting up when the trolls start demanding tolls too, right? In all of the stories the trolls don't live long, not because of subservience to them, but because of reaction to them. No, I am not asking for violent reaction to the trolls, just a recognition of where the phrase comes from before the Internet made people quit thinking. They didnt feed the trolls, they killed the trolls.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

Much will depend on what happens after 90 days, IMO. Will this just be temporary, or will it expand to someone bigger?

I'm at least willing to consider that the Trump administration is sincere in its efforts to review and improve our vetting procedures.

That said, I think the 90 day travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, alot of innocent people with legit reasons to be here have been hurt, and there is a threat that this will push some people off the edge into radicalism.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.

They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.

Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.

Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.

Well, Dakka itself is very obscure. I'd never heard of him until he started making news due to all the protests, peaceful and non-peaceful.

I've never heard of John Thune before either, but I'm sure if protested started popping up against him all over the place I would. Something about not feeding the trolls...

I get the idea of not feeding the trolls, but you get the idea of not shutting up when the trolls start demanding tolls too, right? In all of the stories the trolls don't live long, not because of subservience to them, but because of reaction to them. No, I am not asking for violent reaction to the trolls, just a recognition of where the phrase comes from before the Internet made people quit thinking.

Insult aside, what demands do you think Milo Y. and Gavin McInnes are making?

jasper76 wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Wasn't it only like 1 person who got arrested over the UC Berkeley riots? I could be the victim of fake news here.

It looks like it may be up to three people.

http://abc7news.com/news/3-arrested-in-violent-protest-at-uc-berkeley/1734579/

Very problematic..lack of consequences will only encourage further acts of violence and mayhem.

It will take time, but if there is political will, everyone involved could be arrested.

When we had our Stanley cup riot up here, it took three years of investigations, but ended up with nearly 900 charges against 300 people. We had guys turning themselves in because they were hoping for reduced penalties.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.

The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.

You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.

President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...

Wiki... as a decent writeup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.

Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"

Nationalizing the NG is different... of course Bush could've done it, and there's a case for that. Problem was, there were expectations that the locals were more prepared, and when the realization came that they weren't... it was too late and everyone had to scramble.

I was talking about the Federal departments (DHS, FEMA, Army Corps, etc...) in the immediate aftermath.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

Much will depend on what happens after 90 days, IMO. Will this just be temporary, or will it expand to someone bigger?

I'm at least willing to consider that the Trump administration is sincere in its efforts to review and improve our vetting procedures.

That said, I think the 90 day travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, alot of innocent people with legit reasons to be here have been hurt, and there is a threat that this will push some people off the edge into radicalism.

I think there's merit for temp ban if they're actually using the time to review the process... or at least, let the immigration officials convince the new administration that "they've got this".

It's also a campaign promise... so there is that.

But for sure, there were obvious disconnects between the whitehouse and the other departments that compounded the issues... such that, you have to hope that they've learned their lessons over this ordeal.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.

The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.

You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.

President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...

Wiki... as a decent writeup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.

Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"

Nationalizing the NG is different... of course Bush could've done it, and there's a case for that. Problem was, there were expectations that the locals were more prepared, and when the realization came that they weren't... it was too late and everyone had to scramble.

I was talking about the Federal departments (DHS, FEMA, Army Corps, etc...) in the immediate aftermath.

Your question doesn't really follow from the statement I made, so I'm not really sure what you are asking now, Whem. Were the federal departments on the line for taking care of their responsibilities of taking care of things? I would think so. No?

Not trying to be trite he, I just don't get your question.

 d-usa wrote:
[
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school.

In all fairness the guns the San Bernadino shooters used were illegally modified and illegally purchased all ready, contrary to you post. Also, if you were referring to Sandy Hook, that weapon wasn't legally possessed either. It was stolen.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.

The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.

You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.

President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...

Wiki... as a decent writeup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.

Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"

Nationalizing the NG is different... of course Bush could've done it, and there's a case for that. Problem was, there were expectations that the locals were more prepared, and when the realization came that they weren't... it was too late and everyone had to scramble.

I was talking about the Federal departments (DHS, FEMA, Army Corps, etc...) in the immediate aftermath.

Your question doesn't really follow from the statement I made, so I'm not really sure what you are asking now, Whem. Were the federal departments on the line for taking care of their responsibilities of taking care of things? I would think so. No?

Not trying to be trite he, I just don't get your question.

You're arguing that Bush could've nationalize the National Guard and swooped into New Orleans to save the day... right?

 jasper76 wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Honest Question:

Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.

Much will depend on what happens after 90 days, IMO. Will this just be temporary, or will it expand to someone bigger?

I'm at least willing to consider that the Trump administration is sincere in its efforts to review and improve our vetting procedures.

That said, I think the 90 day travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, alot of innocent people with legit reasons to be here have been hurt, and there is a threat that this will push some people off the edge into radicalism.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.

They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.

Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.

Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.

Well, Dakka itself is very obscure. I'd never heard of him until he started making news due to all the protests, peaceful and non-peaceful.

I've never heard of John Thune before either, but I'm sure if protested started popping up against him all over the place I would. Something about not feeding the trolls...

I get the idea of not feeding the trolls, but you get the idea of not shutting up when the trolls start demanding tolls too, right? In all of the stories the trolls don't live long, not because of subservience to them, but because of reaction to them. No, I am not asking for violent reaction to the trolls, just a recognition of where the phrase comes from before the Internet made people quit thinking.

Insult aside, what demands do you think Milo Y. and Gavin McInnes are making?

Not sure where you were insulted there, if you think you were, please PM me, because that wasn't my intent. I do not think they have any sort of demands because they have no coherent consistent argument (if you know Milo, you understand this). Their goal is to sew dissent. Why? Why for anything? Money. Milo gets paid for his Internet forum and his talks because he gets a rise out of people. So did Honey BooBoo. I regard him and his thoughts in the same way I regard hers.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )

I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.

I'm sure more pious lectures from celebrity millionaires will work out great for the Democrats

I mean, speeches from celebrity millionaires seemed to work out pretty well for the republicans.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.

The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.

You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.

President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...

Wiki... as a decent writeup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.

Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"

Nationalizing the NG is different... of course Bush could've done it, and there's a case for that. Problem was, there were expectations that the locals were more prepared, and when the realization came that they weren't... it was too late and everyone had to scramble.

I was talking about the Federal departments (DHS, FEMA, Army Corps, etc...) in the immediate aftermath.

Your question doesn't really follow from the statement I made, so I'm not really sure what you are asking now, Whem. Were the federal departments on the line for taking care of their responsibilities of taking care of things? I would think so. No?

Not trying to be trite he, I just don't get your question.

You're arguing that Bush could've nationalize the National Guard and swooped into New Orleans to save the day... right?

Yeah, I and I thought your statement "bush could have done it, and there's a case for it"pretty much ended that thought. Expectations or assumptions are irrelevant to the legal case to the matter. His expat actions and assumptions were wrong on the matter.

So there are significant issues in our vetting process? Why did they choose these seven countries? How does it help (in total)?