Needless to say it seems a lot of liberals are going down the slippery slope of this meaning Bush wants to take over the country and institute his evil facism or something with the military. I think this should be talked about - the fact is that in a rapid response scenario the military (not the national guard) are the only guys who could get a quarrantine in place quickly enough to make a difference. National Guard deployment takes days.
That being said, repealing posse commitus (or whatever its spelled) is foolish - the smart play is to juts ignore the law when it happens and let Congress sort things out in the aftermath. I seriously doubt that a President who deploys the army and manages to prevent a real outbreak is going to get more than a gentle slap on the wrist from Congress.
Your “slippery slope” can go straight to hell. THe right used to make up shit about Clinton “taking control” all the time based on nothing, and here we have a President asking to implement the military based on a fantasy scenario, and it’s a “slippery slope”?
Explain to me how the military supposed to solve a medical problem?
There’s no plan here, just “give me unrestricted military power.”
There are days where I realize that I’ve drifted from being a happy centrist to being pretty much a liberal. You are the kind of person who sometimes makes me cringe when I have that realization. You’re also the kind of person who makes the relatively reasonable conservatives roll their eyes and dismiss liberal opposition. Just FYI.
Nowhere in that speech does he seem to be asking for unrestricted military power. He brings up the idea of using the military in a quarrantine situation to prevent the further spread of a highly infectous and lethal virus. You’re reading the “unrestricted military power” between the lines because you’re predisposed to doubt anything and everything Bush says. Good for you, congratulations on being as dogmatic as Roy Moore.
The military of course can’t solve a medical problem. What they can do is enforce a quarrantine. How do you think a quarrantine of a major metropolitan area would work? The goverment would just offer flower and bubblegum to everyone who’d kind enough to not try to leave the city?
It’s enitrely possible, probably even likely that when all is said and done such a quarrantine wouldn’t prevent the spread of a virus. Does that mean it shouldn’t be attempted?
Fact is in the scenario that Bush is talking about (highly lethal airborne virus breaking out in the US) if a quarrantine wasn’t attempted you’d be one of the first people castigating him for lack of preparation for such an eventuality.
That’s right up there with the “I used to be a liberal but the liberals pushed me out” crap. If you’re beliefs can’t stand up to people who don’t do things the way you want them to, that’s too bad for you. Waah. Life is hard.
Nowhere in that speech does he seem to be asking for unrestricted military power. He brings up the idea of using the military in a quarrantine situation to prevent the further spread of a highly infectous and lethal virus. You’re reading the “unrestricted military power” between the lines because you’re predisposed to doubt anything and everything Bush says. Good for you, congratulations on being as dogmatic as Roy Moore.
Don’t tell me why I’m doing anything. Bush responded to Katrina by saying there wasn’t enough miliatry command anc control. I’m seeing a pattern here. But feel free to project all over everything. I hope that works out for you.
The military of course can’t solve a medical problem. What they can do is enforce a quarrantine. How do you think a quarrantine of a major metropolitan area would work? The goverment would just offer flower and bubblegum to everyone who’d kind enough to not try to leave the city?
Yes. That’s what I thought. You’re a mind-reader.
It’s enitrely possible, probably even likely that when all is said and done such a quarrantine wouldn’t prevent the spread of a virus. Does that mean it shouldn’t be attempted?
I dunno. Do you think it might be a good idea to have a plan that works?
Fact is in the scenario that Bush is talking about (highly lethal airborne virus breaking out in the US) if a quarrantine wasn’t attempted you’d be one of the first people castigating him for lack of preparation for such an eventuality.
You aren’t pushing me anywhere Andrew - you just make me roll my eyes heavenward.
I’d follow your example and go bit by bit through your reply in an attempt to score some rhetorical points and gain favor with the audience at home - but frankly that’s pointless. Despite the mostly empty content of your reply, I do think there’s something worth discussing in it. Specifically:
“I dunno. Do you think it might be a good idea to have a plan that works?”
I do. Currently I find it unlikely that the US (much less any state or municipality) is ready to deal with an outbreak of the likes we’re envisioning. I think we need to at least discuss options for dealing with such an eventuality.
So here’s my question to you: do you think a quarrantine is a useful component of any outbreak containment scenario?
Jeff, you know “lets use the military and suspend lots of laws to deal with this emergency” is pretty much how how military takeover starts, right? I’m not worired about Bush doing it, but I also don’t see the reason to lay the groundwork for someone else to.
That’s fair enough Jason - in that case, what steps should we take against this eventuality?
Also I think you should go back and re-read my original post: don’t change any laws! In the event that you end up having to use the army to quarrantine a city or something, just do it. With the laws unchanged Congress will have the power to slap the president down hard if it turns out he does anything inappropriate.
So Jeff, as you sip your chardonnay and roll your eyes, do you ever perhaps wonder why the president should want such power? Oh yes, indeed you did say such a thing in your first paragraph.
But I wonder, Mr. D, what part of this “slippery slope” isn’t Bush sliding down exactly?
And how does Bush making a power grab help us with a Quarantine situation?
So Jeff, as you sip your chardonnay and roll your eyes, do you ever perhaps wonder why the president should want such power? Oh yes, indeed you did say such a thing in your first paragraph.
But I wonder, Mr. D, what part of this “slippery slope” isn’t Bush sliding down exactly?
And how does Bush making a power grab help us with a Quarantine situation?[/quote]
And right here you prove the point I was making to Jeff earlier. Why he tries to have rational discourse of question then answer on P&R, where “Kill black babies to reduce crime HAR HAR!” gets three pages and “Delay indicted” only gets one is beyond me. So why don’t you try answering his questions, instead of more rhetoric?
To wit: Obviously the military is an excellent choice for this duty, if you disregard all other obvious points of checks and balances. They are obviously well trained and disciplined enough to get it done. However, they are also trained to kill. This alone could cause a problem when push comes to shove.
Also, does the military have the manpower domestically to pull this off? I don’t know, but it seems from reports I’ve read that most of our military is overseas currently, which means a lengthy redeployment equaling a piss poor response time when that is of the essence.
I think the solution is preparedness. Rather than looking for a out of the box option right off the bat, we should create plans to redeploy police forces to surrounding areas in a rapid response. Basically, have an “Order 66” if you will, to pull off duty/volunteers at any hour to get to transportation and mobilize to the affected area. Have a headcount system ready so we know what our manpower is in the quarantine zone, so that we can reach out to other areas if the manpower is low or needed in a quick fashion.
Ounce of prevention, etc. etc. It is a bit suspect that when something like this comes up, he goes right to a military action. If I were a cop, I’d probly feel insulted…
I’ll go ahead and answer your questions when you do me the courtesy of answering mine first.
JD
So Jeff, as you sip your chardonnay and roll your eyes, do you ever perhaps wonder why the president should want such power? Oh yes, indeed you did say such a thing in your first paragraph.
But I wonder, Mr. D, what part of this “slippery slope” isn’t Bush sliding down exactly?
And how does Bush making a power grab help us with a Quarantine situation?[/quote]
Can’t he just do it anyways? I mean if they need a quarrantine, do it, legal or not, and then deal with whatever non-existant penalty he wont actually suffer anyways?
What’s sad is that it seems to be the same game over and over again…
If you don’t want to have the conversation except to show how “above the fray” you are, why even bother to post?[/quote]
The only rhetoric now is the silly, “show me yours first” game.
I personally don’t think that Bush had any grand plans involving military takeover when he make the Avian Flu statement.
I think he was only continuing to smooth over the situation with Katrina by paying lip service to those people who were asking “Where was the government? Where is the military?”
Now he’s on record saying that the military should be a part of handling it.
In short, it seemed very CYA.
Please don’t belittle my political stances or guess at what I’m drinking if you choose to respond because they nothing to do with the above statements.
Agreed. But the facist instinct of “population control=success” is clearly part of his math on this problem, and it’s one that fails spectacularly in the real world.
I think he was only continuing to smooth over the situation with Katrina by paying lip service to those people who were asking “Where was the government? Where is the military?”
Well, the military was there during Katrina, they just didn’t do anything. But yeah, I agree that this is part of Bush’s “ready, fire, aim” style of governance.
Please don’t belittle my political stances or guess at what I’m drinking if you choose to respond because they nothing to do with the above statements.
You weren’t pretending to read my mind, so I don’t need to play that game with you.
That’s pretty much my opinion Moore. Don’t change the law - if worse comes to worse send in the army anyway and let Congress sort things out afterward.
I’m going to be overly simplistic with this issue because I don’t think this administration is into overly complex plans of world domination.
I would be willing to bet a vegan cookie that something close to the following happened:
Morning briefing
Bird Flu comes up
President asks, “What should we do?”
Staff wonders why the President is worried because the chance of Bird Flu hitting the United States and causing trouble is very very low.
President says, “Remember Katrina, people? Hellooo? After Katrina, we should have something ready. We should be on record with a plan.”
Discussion
6a - The public seems to be attached to the idea that the Federal Government could do more and do it better than state and local government.
6b - The public seems to believe that the military should do the job.
President says, “Ok, let’s tell the American People that the military will handle any outbreak of Bird Flu.”
7a President continues, “We’ve done what we wanted in the past without needing to explain or justify.”
Staff convinces the President to float a trial balloon first.
Bottom Line: The administration wants to be proactive.
