The running thesis is that Brown is responsible for keeping the fleets of helicopters away from those roofs, and the supplies away from the Superdome.
Not one person has yet described what Brown, or for that matter, anyone at the Federal level, did or did not actually do or fail to do in the performance of their duties. Specifics, please.
"They didn't get there fast enough" means nothing, unless one can compare with a similar situation, or show what specific order or sequence of events, not requiring actual clairvoyance, could have increased the speed. Military was deployed Saturday morning, most of the Naval forces Tuesday, although I dare say if you polled most TV watchers they'd tell you nobody got there until Thursday.
As Pournelle puts it:
Brown has been sent home to resign, and apparently his resume was a bit padded; but that is not why he is being castigated. I was involved with other matters as the Katrina disaster developed so I don't know all the details.
What was it the head of FEMA did that he should not have done, and what did he leave undone that he should have done so that there is no health in him? I ask seriously because I keep hearing "he's dumber than a post" and "Wow was he incompetent" but in fact I have not heard what he did that was so egregious. The heads of most agencies mostly are charged with seeing that the bureaucracy is in compliance with the regulations (six or eight linear feet of regulations, usually) and are not commanding figures. Brown certainly was not inspiring as a leader.
I am sure he is culpable, but are there specifications to the charges? This is not a defense of the man; I just would like to know what he is to be dismissed for other than being unlucky.
As with many arguments about Iraq, I'm being inundated with heat, but not much light.
Sheer noise will work for a P.R. barrage, and is working quite well so far. But when the time comes for testifying in front of a committee, the Democrats had better have some military logs, records, memos, and other items in hand.