Friday, April 06, 2007

Taking Years Off My Life

I know. I know. He’s Michael Brown. I shouldn’t pay attention to what he has to say. It’s bad for my health.

But I just can’t stop myself and he just keeps opening his mouth:
But Brown also accepted some blame for FEMA's slow response to the disaster, and said he lied about what FEMA was doing in response to the hurricane.

He said it was "meaningless" when he said FEMA was moving more cots, food, blankets and rescuers into the Gulf Coast than it had for any other disaster in the United States because there weren't enough supplies and people to meet the victims' needs and the supplies weren't going where they needed to.

"I should not have lied," he said.

When asked why he lied, Brown said, "People get fired for telling the truth."

He said lying is a "systemic problem" in Washington, but "when it comes to life and death issues, you should really tell the truth."
Is it too late to call the police and have him arrested?

ADDED: The link above does not cite a source for the article. This link cites the AP.


Mr. Clio said...

Thanks for the link.

I honestly think this guy's a sociopath.

He's always the bystander, e.g. reporting to the White House that FEMA is unprepared.

Dude, you were IN CHARGE of FEMA!!! Get 'er done.

mominem said...

He's so annoying because there always some truth in what he says.

Lying is a systemic problem in DC.

TravelingMermaid said...

I'm with MR. Clio....he's a fickin' sociopath. And I'm sick of hearing his prattle.

cookie jill said...

I'm thinking that since this administration doesn't believe that waterboarding is torture and is a good way to get "the truth", why don't we try it on Brownie and the gang....see how it works on them?

They've let millions of people get waterlogged with their lies, upon lies, upon lies, upon lies....

I never truly believed in truly evil to the core people...until this administration.

Leigh C. said...

The man is one big ol' walking advertisement for the policy of "cover your ass at all times". And Mominem's right: he was close enough to the folks in power to know something and is shrewd enough to use that knowledge when it suits him - or covers his sorry butt.

Dolabella said...


I hope you don't mind an off-topic comment, but I think this is important:

Re: the Iraq war in general

(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.