http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/03/13/clark-ervin-criticizes-adm-loy-in-wapo/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/03/13/clark-ervin-criticizes-adm-loy-in-wapo/comment-page-1/#comment-390 Kathy Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:21:15 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=489#comment-390 Thanks ... I've taken a slightly stronger position (and <a href="http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207641.htm" rel="nofollow">linked back to you</a>, of course). Thanks … I’ve taken a slightly stronger position (and linked back to you, of course).

]]> http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/03/13/clark-ervin-criticizes-adm-loy-in-wapo/comment-page-1/#comment-389 William R. Cumming Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:20:30 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=489#comment-389 Whatever the merits of your arguments and Clark Kent Ervin's the bottom line on Admiral Loy was a willingness to say "yes, Sir, can do!" even though as a principal administrator and responsible for the National Response Plan (NRP) the proof as the saying goes is in the pudding. Usually senior bureaucrats can be cited for virtually anypostion over time so the real test is what did they get done. The Coasties now have so many missions, including civil reconstruction issues that maybe no one will notice that they lack the ships, planes, and personnel to do even half their job. They do have uniforms and they do salute but the real question is what is their mission assignment and can they get it done. I think Clark Kent Ervin point is that Admiral Loy flunks the General Shinsheki (sic) test of willingness to give up his stars to get the truth out on big issues. This does not denigrate the service of Admiral Loy, it is just that it is readily apparent that few in DHS are willing to honestly state on the record the problems. There are virtually no new ideas in the White House report so perhaps Admiral Loy could now tell us as a private citizen what he fought for in the bureaucratic wars and lost. That is the point. Whatever the merits of your arguments and Clark Kent Ervin’s the bottom line on Admiral Loy was a willingness to say “yes, Sir, can do!” even though as a principal administrator and responsible for the National Response Plan (NRP) the proof as the saying goes is in the pudding. Usually senior bureaucrats can be cited for virtually anypostion over time so the real test is what did they get done. The Coasties now have so many missions, including civil reconstruction issues that maybe no one will notice that they lack the ships, planes, and personnel to do even half their job. They do have uniforms and they do salute but the real question is what is their mission assignment and can they get it done. I think Clark Kent Ervin point is that Admiral Loy flunks the General Shinsheki (sic) test of willingness to give up his stars to get the truth out on big issues. This does not denigrate the service of Admiral Loy, it is just that it is readily apparent that few in DHS are willing to honestly state on the record the problems. There are virtually no new ideas in the White House report so perhaps Admiral Loy could now tell us as a private citizen what he fought for in the bureaucratic wars and lost. That is the point.

]]>