PDA

View Full Version : President Bush Should Resign



Pages : [1] 2

alex trevino
09-02-2005, 09:47 PM
A major U.S. city has been destroyed. The federal government was aware those levies could not hold up. They did nothing about. This amounts to gross negligence.

President Bush is the head of the federal government. He should do the honorable thing and resign.

RFS62
09-02-2005, 09:52 PM
Yep, he should ride a unicorn up to Capitol Hill and stop by that tree that the Keebler Elves are baking those cookies in, pick up a couple of boxes, and go ahead and resign.

alex trevino
09-02-2005, 09:55 PM
Yep, he should ride a unicorn up to Capitol Hill and stop by that tree that the Keebler Elves are baking those cookies in, pick up a couple of boxes, and go ahead and resign.

You are right expecting this president to do the honorable is pure fantasy.

ghettochild
09-02-2005, 09:56 PM
they've known about the leeves since '69 i think...

alex trevino
09-02-2005, 10:05 PM
they've known about the leeves since '69 i think...

Well this occurred under THIS President's watch. You know the one who made homeland secuirty the central theme of his administration?

I would expect any President who lost a major U.S. city to resign or face impeachment.

You would think instead of fortifying bus stops in Anchorage, someone in this frigging administration could have gave a little thought to reinforcing those levies.

Rojo
09-02-2005, 10:06 PM
There's plenty of blame to go around, and the neglect of the levies can be fairly shared but the relief effort is a NATIONAL DISGRACE. If Chertoff and Brown are not dismissed then, and I don't take these things lightly, he should impeached.

jmcclain19
09-02-2005, 10:06 PM
Remind me again why we aren't allowing political threads anymore?

Rojo
09-02-2005, 10:08 PM
Remind me again why we aren't allowing political threads anymore?

People are upset.

CrackerJack
09-02-2005, 10:16 PM
Remind me again why we aren't allowing political threads anymore?

No criticizing Bush. :)

Michael Allred
09-02-2005, 10:19 PM
I think there are legit reasons to fault Bush here. I read that Bush cut funding when the corp of engineers were looking at strengthening the levees (geez, I forget how you spell it!) Perhaps someone else could fill in the details on that story.

People have been talking about this problem for a long time and nothing was done. Now we see the results.

ghettochild
09-02-2005, 10:19 PM
Well this occurred under THIS President's watch. You know the one who made homeland secuirty the central theme of his administration?

I would expect any President who lost a major U.S. city to resign or face impeachment.

You would think instead of fortifying bus stops in Anchorage, someone in this frigging administration could have gave a little thought to reinforcing those levies.

he didn't LOOSE this city.

even IF the leeves were FUNCTIONAL, there would still be 20 feet of RAINWATER from katrina ITSSELF.

don't blame this on bush, you CAN'T stop mother nature, and the more you try the PISSIER she gets.

traderumor
09-02-2005, 10:25 PM
A major U.S. city has been destroyed. The federal government was aware those levies could not hold up. They did nothing about. This amounts to gross negligence.

President Bush is the head of the federal government. He should do the honorable thing and resign.I don't know how Mayor Nagin got on the internet, much less hijacked someone else's name, to post on RZ, but welcome Mayor :wave:

dman
09-02-2005, 10:25 PM
Look, Bush makes his share of mistakes, but why not start with the Mayor of N.O. Or the Governor of La.? There's only so far you can go in blaming Bush. This whole thing was spawned by a natural disaster, not any kind of political miscalculations.

And if you want to go beyond bashing Bush, how 'bout questioning why N.O.'s mayor let his political friends who were staying in the Hyatt jump ahed of those who had been in the Superdome the whole time in regards to being evacuated to Houston.

As has already been pointed out, the blame that Bush should take in this should be minimal, if any.

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 10:32 PM
Look, Bush makes his share of mistakes, but why not start with the Mayor of N.O. Or the Governor of La.? There's only so far you can go in blaming Bush. This whole thing was spawned by a natural disaster, not any kind of political miscalculations.

And if you want to go beyond bashing Bush, how 'bout questioning why N.O.'s mayor let his political friends who were staying in the Hyatt jump ahed of those who had been in the Superdome the whole time in regards to being evacuated to Houston.

As has already been pointed out, the blame that Bush should take in this should be minimal, if any.

Bush wears the mantle of hero for standing on top of a pile of rubble with a bullhorn; when a federal agency ain't doing its job or is deploying too slowly under his watch, he wears the goat.

The buck stops at the President. At least in my version of America.

RBA
09-02-2005, 10:40 PM
A CAT 5 Hurricane bearing down on 3 plus states is not a Federal problem? The Army Corp of Engineers is not a Federal Program? The National Guard not home in their home state, but in Iraq is not a Federal problem?

I'm tired of Democrats and Republicans going on TV patting themselves on the backs for doing such a great job.

And to the Poster who is making wisecrack about the Mayor's emotional breakdown, I don't know what to say. I wish he never has to go through several days of Hell, like he has.

pedro
09-02-2005, 10:41 PM
I think FEMA's high level management has done a pretty awful job and I'm not convinced that they haven't been adversely effected by now being part the Homeland Security Dept, so Bush does IMO bare some culpability at least indirectly for what's going on. But what happens from here on out is really how I'll judge his response to this. Bush gave those who were supposed to be in charge a few days to do what they were supposed to be capable of, and they failed miserably. I really can't blame the guy for not micro managing the situation from the start, but he better from here on out as far as I'm concerned.

He needs to pull out all the stops and tell his underlings that bureaucratic red tape and BS is not acceptable.

RBA
09-02-2005, 10:44 PM
I think FEMA's done a pretty awful job and I'm not convinced that they haven't been adversely effected by now being part the Homeland Security Dept, so Bush does IMO bare some culpability at least indirectly for what's going on. But what happens from here on out is really how I'll judge his response to this. Bush gave those who were supposed to be in charge a few days to do what they were supposed to be capable of, and they failed miserably. I really can't blame the guy for not micro managing the situation from the start, but he better from here on out as far as I'm concerned.

He needs to pull out all the stops and tell his underlings that bureaucratic red tape and BS is not acceptable.

That's his leadership style. He's the CEO President. He is not a hands on type of guy. He expects results and when he doesn't get them, he promotes them to a higher position and fires the whistle blower. Or gives them a medal like Tenet.

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 10:45 PM
I think FEMA's done a pretty awful job and I'm not convinced that they haven't been adversely effected by now being part the Homeland Security Dept, so Bush does IMO bare some culpability at least indirectly for what's going on. But what happens from here on out is really how I'll judge his response to this. Bush gave those who were supposed to be in charge a few days to do what they were supposed to be capable of, and they failed miserably. I really can't blame the guy for not micro managing the situation from the start, but he better from here on out as far as I'm concerned.

He needs to pull out all the stops and tell his underlings that bureaucratic red tape and BS is not acceptable.

If this country isn't disaster-ready after 9/11, it's never going to be.

And that's a real possibility; it may never be. I don't know.

traderumor
09-02-2005, 10:49 PM
Yep, keep on getting self-righteous and pointing fingers, folks. Yet, the racists are trying to sell the relief effort failing is a race issue. Can't even avoid exploiting the race issue in a case like this. Tell me it is not despicable for suggesting such garbage in such an instance. Yet the President should resign. How about shutting up the racists and the media from trying to exploit this for political gain?

Falls City Beer
09-02-2005, 10:52 PM
Yep, keep on getting self-righteous and pointing fingers, folks. Yet, the racists are trying to sell the relief effort failing is a race issue. Can't even avoid exploiting the race issue in a case like this. Tell me it is not despicable for suggesting such garbage in such an instance. Yet the President should resign. How about shutting up the racists and the media from trying to exploit this for political gain?

It's negligence. Whatever the reason for it is, I don't know or much care. But it's negligence, and that's all I need to know.

alex trevino
09-02-2005, 10:59 PM
Your post is the first one in this thread that even mentions race.

Rojo
09-02-2005, 11:14 PM
Look, Bush makes his share of mistakes, but why not start with the Mayor of N.O. Or the Governor of La.? There's only so far you can go in blaming Bush. This whole thing was spawned by a natural disaster, not any kind of political miscalculations.

And if you want to go beyond bashing Bush, how 'bout questioning why N.O.'s mayor let his political friends who were staying in the Hyatt jump ahed of those who had been in the Superdome the whole time in regards to being evacuated to Houston.

As has already been pointed out, the blame that Bush should take in this should be minimal, if any.

No, my friend, he makes his share, my share, your share and an Italian wedding party's share of mistakes. Two August vacations, two calamaties. At some point you have to stop making excuses and starting making changes.

And I'm not going to defend Nagin. I frankly don't know what he could or could not do. But I do know that the President of the United States of America is supposed to be infinitely more capable -- and sure as hell has more resources at his disposal -- than the mayor of New Orleans.

So Nagin let his friends in the head of the line? Big deal. If the people of this country can let some Rovian talking point detract them from what really matters -- the utter ineptitude and reckless indifference of the Federal Government, then I give up. At some point you have to concede that not everything can be reduced to some talk radio mudsling and demand accountablity.

This disaster has revealed some deeply-ingrained problems in this country that, frankly, go back long before Bush took his first drunken joy ride. This country wasn't built by people bound by a race or a region or a party, but a people dedicated to the notion that greatness beat in every person's heart and demanded liberation. The founding fathers thought so highly of government's ability to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness that they enshrined it in a document that has served as a beacon to the oppressed the world over. I don't want to live in a country that would allow the next Duke Ellington or Willie Mays to die in a fetid puddle in the streets of New Orleans. That's not the America I believed in as a child and still do today, even as it grows dimmer by the day.

So spare me the silly character-assisignations. I honestly don't care if Ray Nagin is the devil incarnate. Toss him into Levenworth if need be. But dammit, at some point, the man who sits in the oval office has to put his agendas and political calculations in the back seat and take his committment to the American people -- all of them-- seriously.

pedro
09-02-2005, 11:18 PM
great post Rojo.

WVRed
09-02-2005, 11:51 PM
Well this occurred under THIS President's watch. You know the one who made homeland secuirty the central theme of his administration?

I would expect any President who lost a major U.S. city to resign or face impeachment.

You would think instead of fortifying bus stops in Anchorage, someone in this frigging administration could have gave a little thought to reinforcing those levies.

I guess Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton should have resigned. Even though they didnt lose a major US city, they still didnt do enough to prepare for it. :rolleyes:

Bush didnt even make homeland security an issue until the planes hit the World Trade Center.

I would just like to point out too that this would be a perfect thread for the new board. Just sayin'.

alex trevino
09-03-2005, 12:04 AM
[QUOTE=WVRed]I guess Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton should have resigned. Even though they didnt lose a major US city, they still didnt do enough to prepare for it. :rolleyes:

Bush didnt even make homeland security an issue until the planes hit the World Trade Center.

I would just like to point out too that this would be a perfect thread for the new board. Just sayin

I would point out that none of the other Presidents you mention currently hold a position in the federal government. I was willing to cut Bush a break on 9/11 but come on the man has been in office for 6 years! I thought the Republican party liked to promote personal accountability? But you're right instead holding the current President accountable let's just bllame Jimmy Carter. :rolleyes:

WVRed
09-03-2005, 12:09 AM
I would point out that none of the other Presidents you mention currently hold a position in the federal government. I was willing to cut Bush a break on 9/11 but come on the man has been in office for 6 years! I thought the Republican party liked to promote personal accountability? But you're right instead holding the current President accountable let's just bllame Jimmy Carter. :rolleyes:

So? They did at one point.

Saying Bush should be impeached for a hurricane befalling New Orleans is like saying Clinton should have been impeached because of Monica. It doesnt make sense.

Rojo
09-03-2005, 12:10 AM
I guess Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton should have resigned. Even though they didnt lose a major US city, they still didnt do enough to prepare for it. :rolleyes:

But I can guaran-friggin-tee each one of those men would have interrupted their vacations, or at least cancelled their agenda-driven schedule, to make sure that our country wouldn't have to watch corpses float down the Mississippi.

flyer85
09-03-2005, 12:20 AM
The order of negligence goes 1) the city of New Orleans 2)the state of Louisiana 3)the Federal Government

BTW, we can blame the French for this as well. They are the ones that built the settlement in a swamp between 2 sources of water.

alex trevino
09-03-2005, 12:20 AM
So? They did at one point.

Saying Bush should be impeached for a hurricane befalling New Orleans is like saying Clinton should have been impeached because of Monica. It doesnt make sense.

Fisrt of all, I said if the man had any honor he would resign..I don't expect him to be impeach because the majority in Congress is even less honorable, second It's not about a hurricane it's about measures that were not taken to protect the city in the event of a hurricane. Ever heard of neglect of duty?

If this administration would have been focused on REAL THREATS instead of imaginary WMDs , there were not be 2,000 U.S. troops dead and a major U.S. city destroyed.

At some point, people are going to have stop making excuses fior the most incompentent administration in American historty.

RBA
09-03-2005, 12:24 AM
The order of negligence goes 1) the city of New Orleans 2)the state of Louisiana 3)the Federal Government

BTW, we can blame the French for this as well. They are the ones that built the settlement in a swamp between 2 sources of water.


I see someone got their fix of Right Radio and Bill O'Liely tonight.

flyer85
09-03-2005, 12:29 AM
I see someone got their fix of Right Radio and Bill O'Liely tonight.never listen to talk radio or watch Fox News. I happen to understand the principles of limited central government this country was founded on, and as such am no fan of Bush the Younger.

Rojo
09-03-2005, 12:30 AM
The order of negligence goes 1) the city of New Orleans 2)the state of Louisiana 3)the Federal Government

BTW, we can blame the French for this as well. They are the ones that built the settlement in a swamp between 2 sources of water.

That's exactly backwards. Who takes a bigger share of the average New Orleans working person's paycheck? You do the math and tell me who is responsible.

RBA
09-03-2005, 12:33 AM
never listen to talk radio or watch Fox News. I happen to understand the principles of limited central government this country was founded on, and as such am no fan of Bush the Younger.

But somehow everyone has ignored my questions above:

A CAT 5 Hurricane bearing down on 3 plus states is not a Federal problem? The Army Corp of Engineers is not a Federal Program? The National Guard not home in their home state, but in Iraq is not a Federal problem?



I wonder why?

alex trevino
09-03-2005, 12:34 AM
never listen to talk radio or watch Fox News. I happen to understand the principles of limited central government this country was founded on, and as such am no fan of Bush the Younger.

Then you understand the federal government's role in providing for the national defense? and I am sure you understand the central governments role in ensuring the free flow of commerece. Both are the very basic function of the federal government. Wouldn't you agree both roles are called into question when a major U.S. city is destroyed?

flyer85
09-03-2005, 12:43 AM
A CAT 5 Hurricane bearing down on 3 plus states is not a Federal problem? the question is who bears the consequences of a slow moving federal behemoth. The answer is the people who live in the area. New Orleans needed a short term contigency plan for a worst case scenario. They had none. The federal government and its adminstrators are always slow to move and respond.

This has been bad, but I can tell you the worst is yet to come for the persons displaced by the storm.. Hundreds of thousands of displaced persons who will have no place to live for months to come, their suffering is just beginning.

The suffering however, is on a small scale compared to the tsunami last year, when a flood hits China or a typhoon hits Bangladesh. It is still a human tragedy but maybe as many people died on a bridge in Iraq a few days later.

flyer85
09-03-2005, 12:50 AM
Wouldn't you agree both roles are called into question when a major U.S. city is destroyed?The unique geography of New Orleans made it a catastrophe waiting to happen, no matter what the federal government or the city of NO had done. To avert the short term suffering a local evacuation plan was needed. If the city had a plan of evacuation almost all of the short term suffering and death could have been avoided. instead New Orleans had no plan for anything.

It is a human tragedy and mother nature is a powerful adversary and this is the price that is paid for thumbing our nose at her and not respecting her power and believing that since a major hurricane(Bessie in 65) hadn't hit in 40 years that nothing was going to happen.

Unassisted
09-03-2005, 12:57 AM
This has been bad, but I can tell you the worst is yet to come for the persons displaced by the storm.. Hundreds of thousands of displaced persons who will have no place to live for months to come, their suffering is just beginning.I live in a city that's taking in up to 15,000 evacuees this weekend. From the interviews I've seen of evaqcuees, nobody intends to spend months in the shelters. The story here is that many of them expect to relocate here permanently, with help from the government and the private sector. Section 8 landlords are already stepping forward with quality rentals and waiving processing feesl Local employers are stepping forward with jobs for those who need employment. School districts are streamlining enrollment processes for the new residents and waiving immunization requirements. The evacuees are being given the opportunity to start new lives here if they so choose.

I read a story today that many companies based in New Orleans are preparing to relocate permanently to Baton Rouge. That city of 700,000 expects that it may gain 300,000 residents within a year.

paintmered
09-03-2005, 01:00 AM
People are upset.

For the record, the discussion to end the p-threads started back when people still thought of Katrina as an uncommon female name.

flyer85
09-03-2005, 01:05 AM
There is a profound psychological impact when losing all of our material possessions. It brings on intense feelings of hopelessness and insecurity. Those feelings of insecurity will only intensify in the near future, these people lost their homes and possessions. A lot have no job to return to. I have compassion for them and their plight. aFor the ones fortunate enough to get a place to live and have employment in the short term it is still going to be a difficult transition.

RBA
09-03-2005, 01:14 AM
SHAME! DISGRACE!

Red Cross

* Acess to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

* The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.

http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html#4524

NDRed
09-03-2005, 01:58 AM
Lots of blame to go around, especially locally. Pictured are flooded buses in New Orleans that were never used.

Hello Mayor????? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015)

BUTLER REDSFAN
09-03-2005, 02:07 AM
ya know several months back the judiciary in florida forcibly starved a woman to death (terri schiavo)that took 2 weeks to finish her off..yet everyone said she was in no pain and no1 seemed to care....yet these people go hungry for 3.5 days..why all the concern now hmmmmmm????

Reds/Flyers Fan
09-03-2005, 02:11 AM
And to the Poster who is making wisecrack about the Mayor's emotional breakdown, I don't know what to say. I wish he never has to go through several days of Hell, like he has.

Well one thing is painfully clear - Mayor Nagin is no Rudy Guilliani. Imagine RG after Sept. 11 swearing on international television, blaming everyone (Democrats and Republicans) except himself and saying that he gives up. Thank God New York didn't face that kind of leadership.

RBA
09-03-2005, 02:15 AM
ya know several months back the judiciary in florida forcibly starved a woman to death (terri schiavo)that took 2 weeks to finish her off..yet everyone said she was in no pain and no1 seemed to care....yet these people go hungry for 3.5 days..why all the concern now hmmmmmm????

The woman was DEAD already. Congress went back in session and Bush flew back to the Whitehouse in the dead of night to sign a worthless bill to "save" this dead woman's life.

THE WOMAN WAS DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

RBA
09-03-2005, 02:17 AM
Dead!

BUTLER REDSFAN
09-03-2005, 02:19 AM
hey red blooded i guess we need to go ahead and finish off everyone in a hospice just a little early then??? finish off every1 in a wheelchair---any1 that just found out they have terminal cancer???

RBA
09-03-2005, 02:21 AM
hey red blooded i guess we need to go ahead and finish off everyone in a hospice just a little early then??? finish off every1 in a wheelchair---any1 that just found out they have terminal cancer???

We been through this before and you know it. The woman had no Cerebral Cortex. The WOMAN WAS DEAD!

RBA
09-03-2005, 02:24 AM
Thousands suffering and someone has the nerve to compare that to a brain-dead woman.

Reds/Flyers Fan
09-03-2005, 02:31 AM
ya know several months back the judiciary in florida forcibly starved a woman to death (terri schiavo)that took 2 weeks to finish her off..yet everyone said she was in no pain and no1 seemed to care....yet these people go hungry for 3.5 days..why all the concern now hmmmmmm????

Good point, although I think the concern now is more than valid - hence the almost $200 million raised by Americans toward relief so far.

It breaks my heart to see the suffering of the elderly, the sick, the young and the good people who are in a pitiful situation. But I could care less if the thugs running around raping girls, burning buildings, preying on shell-shocked tourists and shooting at rescue helicopters ever get another drop of water again. Forget trying to arrest them. Shoot to kill these animals.

pedro
09-03-2005, 02:48 AM
Thousands suffering and someone has the nerve to compare that to a brain-dead woman.

Pretty appalling.

I also think it's sad that people are beating up on the mayor of NOLA. It's hard IMO to compare what's going on there to 9/11. Just completely different situations.

NDRed
09-03-2005, 02:51 AM
Pretty appalling.

I also think it's sad that people are beating up on the mayor of NOLA. It's hard IMO to compare what's going on there to 9/11. Just completely different situations.


How do you explain not mobolizing every bus in town?

pedro
09-03-2005, 03:07 AM
How do you explain not mobolizing every bus in town?

Where was he going to send them? With what money? Thats what state and federal emergency management is for IMO. Are there things he could have done? Perhaps there were. I really don't know what kind of help he asked for before the fact. But he is also there on the ground now, dealing with a situation in which possibly over a million people have lost their homes and maybe a quarter million are standed in a city with no water, food, electricity and the city has no available resources to do anything about it. At this point, help is going to have to come from the outside, there really is no other way.

GAC
09-03-2005, 07:25 AM
C'MON AUGUST 15TH! :lol:

Such ludicrous accusations. How about faulting those at the state and local levels for not being on the ball and taking pre-emptive action. The governor of that state should be shot I guess.

No one knew just how much damage this hurricane was gonna inflict. For cryin' out loud - they weren't even sure, at the last minute, exactly where it was gonna land.

And can the federeal government intervene without the state asking for assistance?

SunDeck
09-03-2005, 09:03 AM
Everyone is upset about this. It's natural; seeing thousands of our own citizens dying in the streets and not getting aid immediately is hard to swallow. Lawlessness, destruction, essentially a third world tragedy right in our own back yard.

I think it's unreasonable of us to expect that they could have evacuated everyone from the city prior to the hurricane. No political figure could risk forcing 450,000 people to leave a town for fear that nothing would occur. It's a cold reality, but that's the way hurricanes have acted in the Gulf over the last twenty years and I'm sure a forced, mandatory evacuation would have caused riots and unrest just the same. And yes, they have talked about raising the levees for years, but take a look at a map of NOLA and you'll understand why it never happened. It was a billions of dollars project to prepare for a hurricane they weren't sure would ever materialize. So they took those risks and now we're paying for it.

Personally, I was surprised that there weren't helicopters dropping MREs all over the concourse at the Superdome. And I do think the response has been chaotic, probably too slow to materialized and obviously not planned in advance. My wife talked to her uncle last night and we found out that her cousin lost her house. Her ex-husband lost his house, his family lost their's. She has friends she fears are dead. Everyone has lost everything; their entire network of support is gone. My wife's cousin literally is now in possession of only a cell phone, a kite, her purse and the clothes on her back.

For the moment how about let's forget who to fire, impeach or imprison and get into our pocket books to get this thing right.

SandyD
09-03-2005, 09:07 AM
I really hate that this situation is being politicized. Perhaps all sides could/should have done more, but keep in mind that on Thursday, the projected path had this storm headed into the Florida panhandle or to Mobile Bay.

A lot of people could have/should have done more, but Mandatory evacuation wasn't called until late Sunday, I believe, and that's really too late to get everybody out. But hurricanes are unpredictable, and so it's tough to make such a call earlier than that.

I was angry when I read about the cuts to the Corps of Engineers back before all this happened, but let's just do what we can to help the people in need now.

SandyD
09-03-2005, 09:11 AM
SunDeck, you've said it much better than I can. I'm sorry about your wife's family. Let me know if I can help.

RFS62
09-03-2005, 09:14 AM
Excellent post, Sun Deck.

Spot on.

RBA
09-03-2005, 09:51 AM
Back to Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20050903/ts_chicagotrib/exofficialssayweakenedfemabotchedresponse) - Help (http://help.yahoo.com/)
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nt/ma/ma_nws_1.gif (http://news.yahoo.com/)

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/chtr.gif
Ex-officials say weakened FEMA botched response

By Frank James and Andrew Martin Washington Bureau 5 minutes ago



Government disaster officials had an action plan if a major hurricane hit New Orleans. They simply didn't execute it when Hurricane Katrina struck.

Thirteen months before Katrina hit New Orleans, local, state and federal officials held a simulated hurricane drill that Ronald Castleman, then the regional director for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, called "a very good exercise."

More than a million residents were "evacuated" in the table-top scenario as 120 m.p.h. winds and 20 inches of rain caused widespread flooding that supposedly trapped 300,000 people in the city.

"It was very much an eye-opener," said Castleman, a Republican appointee of President Bush who left FEMA in December for the private sector. "A number of things were identified that we had to deal with, not all of them were solved."

Still, Castleman found it hard to square the lessons he and others learned from the exercise with the frustratingly slow response to the disaster that has unfolded in the wake of Katrina. From the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans to the Mississippi and Alabama communities along the Gulf Coast, hurricane survivors have decried the lack of water, food and security and the slowness of the federal relief efforts.

"It's hard for everyone to understand why buttons weren't pushed earlier on," Castleman said of the federal response.

As the first National Guard truck caravans of water and food arrived in New Orleans on Friday, former FEMA officials and other disaster experts were at a loss to explain why the federal government's lead agency for responding to major emergencies had failed to meet the urgent needs of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the most dire of circumstances in a more timely fashion.

But many suspected that FEMA's apparent problems in getting life-sustaining supplies to survivors and buses to evacuate them from New Orleans--delays even Bush called "not acceptable"--stemmed partly from changes at the agency during the Bush years. Experts have long warned that the moves would weaken the agency's ability to effectively respond to natural disasters.

Less clout, experience

FEMA's chief has been demoted from a near-Cabinet-level position; political appointees with little, if any, emergency-management experience have been placed in senior FEMA positions; and the small, 2,500-person agency was dropped into the midst of the 180,000-employee Homeland Security Department, which is more oriented to combating terrorism than natural disasters. All that has led to a brain drain as experienced but demoralized employees have left the agency, former and current FEMA staff members say.

The result is that an agency that got high marks during much of the 1990s for its effectiveness is being harshly criticized for seemingly mismanaging the response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The growing anger and frustration at FEMA's efforts sparked the Republican-controlled Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to announce Friday that it has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to try to uncover what went wrong.

Meanwhile, Sen. Mary Landrieu (news, bio, voting record) (D-La.) called on Bush to immediately appoint a Cabinet-level official to direct the national response.

"There was a time when FEMA understood that the correct approach to a crisis was to deploy to the affected area as many resources as possible as fast as possible," Landrieu said. "Unfortunately, that no longer seems to be their approach."

John Copenhaver, a former FEMA regional director during the Clinton administration who led the response to Hurricane Floyd in 1999, said he was bewildered by the agency's slow response this time.

It had been standard practice for FEMA to position supplies ahead of time, and the agency did preposition drinking water and tarps to cover damaged roofs near where they would be needed. In addition, FEMA has coordinated its plans with state and local officials and let the Defense Department know beforehand what type of military assistance would be needed.

"I'm a little confused as to why it took so long to get the military presence running convoys into downtown New Orleans," Copenhaver said.



And there isn't an experienced disaster-response expert at the top of the agency as there was when James Lee Witt ran it during the 1990s. Before Michael Brown, the current head, joined the agency as its legal counsel, he was with the International Arabian Horse Association.

That loss of experienced personnel might explain in part why FEMA was not able to secure buses sooner for the evacuation of New Orleans, a step anticipated by the hurricane disaster simulation last year.

Peter Pantuso, president of the American Bus Association, said, "I have a hard time believing there is any game plan in place when it comes to coordinating or pulling together this volume of business," referring to FEMA's effort to obtain hundreds of buses to move tens of thousands of evacuees from New Orleans. "And what happens in two or three weeks down the road when all of these people are moved again?"

When FEMA became part of the Homeland Security Department, it was stripped of some functions, such as some of its ability to make preparedness grants to states, former officials said. Those functions were placed elsewhere in the larger agency.

FEMA capability `marginalized'

"After Sept. 11 they got so focused on terrorism they effectively marginalized the capability of FEMA," said George Haddow, a former FEMA official during the Clinton administration. "It's no surprise that they're not capable of managing the federal government's response to this kind of disaster."

Pleasant Mann, former head of the union for FEMA employees who has been with the agency since 1988, said a change made by agency higher-ups last year added a bureaucratic layer that likely delayed FEMA's response to Katrina.

Before the change, a FEMA employee at the site of a disaster could request that an experienced employee he knew had the right skills be dispatched to help him. But now that requested worker is first made to travel to a location hundreds of miles from the disaster site to be "processed," placed in a pool from which he is dispatched, sometimes to a place different from where he thought he was headed.

Pleasant said he knew of a case in which a worker from Washington state was made to travel first to Orlando before he could go to Louisiana, losing at least a day. What's more, that worker was told he might be sent to Alabama, not Louisiana, after all.

----------

fjames@tribune.com ajmartin@tribune.com







Copyright © 2005 Chicago Tribune (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/trib/chi/SIG=chdc3v/*http://www.chicagotribune.com/)


Questions or Comments (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12f6i4tg0/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=96431850:FOOT/_ylt=AsdC6HG57z9.dTX7Qk1VTgTqbr8F/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1125758778/A=1030392/R=1/SIG=1124ddvo1/*http://help.yahoo.com/help/news/)
Privacy Policy (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12f6i4tg0/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=96431850:FOOT/_ylt=AsdC6HG57z9.dTX7Qk1VTgTqbr8F/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1125758778/A=1030392/R=2/SIG=11a1ak88p/*http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/news) -Terms of Service (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12f6i4tg0/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=96431850:FOOT/_ylt=AsdC6HG57z9.dTX7Qk1VTgTqbr8F/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1125758778/A=1030392/R=3/SIG=1136qnvkg/*http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) - Copyright/IP Policy (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12f6i4tg0/M=224039.1983420.3465435.1919853/D=news/S=96431850:FOOT/_ylt=AsdC6HG57z9.dTX7Qk1VTgTqbr8F/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1125758778/A=1030392/R=4/SIG=11lp7krrc/*http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html) - Ad Feedback (http://javascript<b></b>:ADFlaunch())

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 10:27 AM
I don't think Bush should resign. I think people should be forced to behold their Frankenstein.

RBA
09-03-2005, 10:35 AM
Resign? Althou I have contributed to this thread, I in know way said he should resign. Take responsiblity, that would be a good start.

RANDY IN INDY
09-03-2005, 10:51 AM
Everyone is upset about this. It's natural; seeing thousands of our own citizens dying in the streets and not getting aid immediately is hard to swallow. Lawlessness, destruction, essentially a third world tragedy right in our own back yard.

I think it's unreasonable of us to expect that they could have evacuated everyone from the city prior to the hurricane. No political figure could risk forcing 450,000 people to leave a town for fear that nothing would occur. It's a cold reality, but that's the way hurricanes have acted in the Gulf over the last twenty years and I'm sure a forced, mandatory evacuation would have caused riots and unrest just the same. And yes, they have talked about raising the levees for years, but take a look at a map of NOLA and you'll understand why it never happened. It was a billions of dollars project to prepare for a hurricane they weren't sure would ever materialize. So they took those risks and now we're paying for it.

Personally, I was surprised that there weren't helicopters dropping MREs all over the concourse at the Superdome. And I do think the response has been chaotic, probably too slow to materialized and obviously not planned in advance. My wife talked to her uncle last night and we found out that her cousin lost her house. Her ex-husband lost his house, his family lost their's. She has friends she fears are dead. Everyone has lost everything; their entire network of support is gone. My wife's cousin literally is now in possession of only a cell phone, a kite, her purse and the clothes on her back.

For the moment how about let's forget who to fire, impeach or imprison and get into our pocket books to get this thing right.

:thumbup:

traderumor
09-03-2005, 10:56 AM
Is it any less appalling to rip on the politicians, the same politicians that the same people are criticizing their every move long before a hurricane hit, sitting far away from the action, looking at things in hindsight, not making any decisions, sitting there typing on a computer about what a crappy job the powers that be are doing? That is appalling to me.

I find it interesting that two posters who have been directly affected by this aren't looking to point fingers at this point.

RBA
09-03-2005, 10:58 AM
The same Politicians who were patting themselves and each other on the back on national tv saying what a great response they were doing while people were dying. That's appalling to me.

traderumor
09-03-2005, 11:06 AM
The same Politicians who were patting themselves and each other on the back on national tv saying what a great response they were doing while people were dying. That's appalling to me.The man that you are yelling the loudest at, Bush, has admitted publicly that the Feds dropped the ball. I guess only a lynching on the Superdome plaza will do at this point. Maybe a firing squad?

traderumor
09-03-2005, 11:08 AM
BTW, this is exactly why I don't rely on the Fed government. They are not my savior, never have been, never will be.

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 11:26 AM
The man that you are yelling the loudest at, Bush, has admitted publicly that the Feds dropped the ball.

Credit where it's due. He did admit wrong. There's a first time for everything, it seems.

traderumor
09-03-2005, 11:35 AM
What I would like to stop is the exploitation of this situation, while the disaster is still ongoing, with the political potshots by both the citizenry and the media, the claims by the likes of Jesse Jackson, et al, that the slow response is due to race and social status. That is the most disturbing part of the opinions flying around right now. Just keep on exploiting the plight of the poor and the minorities rather than actually doing something to help.

Reds Nd2
09-03-2005, 11:57 AM
BTW, this is exactly why I don't rely on the Fed government.

Or trust them for that matter. Regardless of which party happens to be sitting in the Oval Office.

RedsBaron
09-03-2005, 11:57 AM
Unfortunately the first impulse of too many politicians, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, to any tragedy or crisis, is to rush to the nearest microphone to make pronouncements on what their political adversaries did wrong and on how they themselves had the foresight to have averted the problem if only they had been listened to.
A lot of balls were dropped by a lot of people, most recently by President Bush and his administration in an at best too slow reaction to the New Orleans tragedy, but some of the current problem goes back decades. The levees were apparently not properly maintained nor was sufficient funding provided, but part of the problem may be the levees themselves and the loss of wetlands. We have been putting buildings and people in harm's way for decades, building directing in the paths of hurricanes, while trying to put the Mississippi River in a corset she doesn't want to wear.

traderumor
09-03-2005, 12:59 PM
Or trust them for that matter. Regardless of which party happens to be sitting in the Oval Office.I trust politicians as much as I do any other human beings. They are just people, and the expectations on them are enormous and often unrealistic.

Rojo
09-03-2005, 02:23 PM
Is it any less appalling to rip on the politicians, the same politicians that the same people are criticizing their every move long before a hurricane hit, sitting far away from the action, looking at things in hindsight, not making any decisions, sitting there typing on a computer about what a crappy job the powers that be are doing? That is appalling to me.

I find it interesting that two posters who have been directly affected by this aren't looking to point fingers at this point.

Hindsight is all you get with this Adminstration. How about a little foresight? Who could have foreseen 9/11? Who could have foreseen the Iraqi insurgency? Who could have foreseen the biggests calamity in our nation's history? That's all we get. This goes beyond ideology or party. This President continually drops the ball. If he were an outfielder, he'd be shipped back to A-ball.

Yeah, I'm only some guy typing on a computer. That's what we all are. But, whether its the Reds or the Federal Government, just because we don't call the shots, doesn't mean we can't criticize.

WVRed
09-03-2005, 10:21 PM
Should Bush resign? No. If anything, at the expense of infuriating the left on this board, he should be re-elected to a third term for the way he has handled the hurricane(if it were possible).

With that said, i've made my feelings known. But at the same time, I do find it remotely sickening that probably the biggest natural disaster in US history is being politicized. If its not the Democrats blaming Bush with enough material to fill up the National Enquirer, its the Republicans blaming the Democratically elected governor and mayor from New Orleans.

Im a Republican, and I think most anybody who reads here knows that by now. But its instances like this and the tsunami that quite frankly makes me sick of politics. :thumbdown

TeamCasey
09-03-2005, 10:35 PM
My security or pocketbook couldn't handle a 3rd term.

traderumor
09-03-2005, 10:59 PM
Hindsight is all you get with this Adminstration. How about a little foresight? Who could have foreseen 9/11? Who could have foreseen the Iraqi insurgency? Who could have foreseen the biggests calamity in our nation's history? That's all we get. This goes beyond ideology or party. This President continually drops the ball. If he were an outfielder, he'd be shipped back to A-ball.

Yeah, I'm only some guy typing on a computer. That's what we all are. But, whether its the Reds or the Federal Government, just because we don't call the shots, doesn't mean we can't criticize.I know you can criticize, believe me. Yes, having every contingency set and ready to go for every eventuality that might ever befall the US would be a panacea, now wouldn't it? Reality sucks, and it shows we're all vulnerable, and that the government can't always bail our butts out, and sometimes they just plain screw up. A dose of reality, very sobering, yet all we can do in retrospect is criticize the Feds for not being there in a time of need. But how many times does the government bail folks out in their lifetime compared to how many times they let them down? I'm sure everyone has their horror stories, but I find all the complaining from outsiders (not the vicitims, for God's sake) sounding like the whine of spoiled little brats who are so used to the government fixing everything so we can continue to trust them for a safety net. Our reliance on the Fed government is well beyond what it should be.

Of course, if the gov't would have just thrown more money this direction, or that direction, and not thrown it in this direction, then maybe, just maybe, everything might have played out different. Coulda, shoulda, woulda is all I hear at times like this.

Falls City Beer
09-03-2005, 11:08 PM
I know you can criticize, believe me. Yes, having every contingency set and ready to go for every eventuality that might ever befall the US would be a panacea, now wouldn't it? Reality sucks, and it shows we're all vulnerable, and that the government can't always bail our butts out, and sometimes they just plain screw up. A dose of reality, very sobering, yet all we can do in retrospect is criticize the Feds for not being there in a time of need. But how many times does the government bail folks out in their lifetime compared to how many times they let them down? I'm sure everyone has their horror stories, but I find all the complaining from outsiders (not the vicitims, for God's sake) sounding like the whine of spoiled little brats who are so used to the government fixing everything so we can continue to trust them for a safety net. Our reliance on the Fed government is well beyond what it should be.

Of course, if the gov't would have just thrown more money this direction, or that direction, and not thrown it in this direction, then maybe, just maybe, everything might have played out different. Coulda, shoulda, woulda is all I hear at times like this.

I think it's less an issue of money than it is of a lack of sense of urgency. One thing I know is that help could have gotten there sooner. If it could have gotten there sooner, it should have. So yeah, it is coulda shoulda--and I'd add one more: no excuses.

Sure, maybe it's early or too difficult to pin it on one agency or person, and hey, maybe it's not the time to assign blame. But eventually there needs to be a reckoning; otherwise, we'll see this situation all over again in another place, another time.

Rojo
09-03-2005, 11:45 PM
I know you can criticize, believe me. Yes, having every contingency set and ready to go for every eventuality that might ever befall the US would be a panacea, now wouldn't it? Reality sucks, and it shows we're all vulnerable, and that the government can't always bail our butts out, and sometimes they just plain screw up. A dose of reality, very sobering, yet all we can do in retrospect is criticize the Feds for not being there in a time of need. But how many times does the government bail folks out in their lifetime compared to how many times they let them down? I'm sure everyone has their horror stories, but I find all the complaining from outsiders (not the vicitims, for God's sake) sounding like the whine of spoiled little brats who are so used to the government fixing everything so we can continue to trust them for a safety net. Our reliance on the Fed government is well beyond what it should be.

Of course, if the gov't would have just thrown more money this direction, or that direction, and not thrown it in this direction, then maybe, just maybe, everything might have played out different. Coulda, shoulda, woulda is all I hear at times like this.

Thanks for your "dose of reality" to wake me up from my daydreams of accountability and responsiveness. I mean what kind of idiot expects the Federal government to show up with supplies and restore order to a major city in under four days? We can't rely on the Government to do this for us. Of course they can prevent a mushroom cloud in Cincinnati with preemptive strikes to a sovereign nation. But disaster relief? Sheesh, what babies we are.

BTW, care to take a trip to the New Orleans convention center and call those people "spoiled brats"?

RBA
09-04-2005, 12:18 AM
BTW, care to take a trip to the New Orleans convention center and call those people "spoiled brats"?

I think he was excluding the victims.

Rojo
09-04-2005, 12:43 AM
My bad.

traderumor
09-04-2005, 12:44 AM
Thanks for your "dose of reality" to wake me up from my daydreams of accountability and responsiveness. I mean what kind of idiot expects the Federal government to show up with supplies and restore order to a major city in under four days? We can't rely on the Government to do this for us. Of course they can prevent a mushroom cloud in Cincinnati with preemptive strikes to a sovereign nation. But disaster relief? Sheesh, what babies we are.

BTW, care to take a trip to the New Orleans convention center and call those people "spoiled brats"?I don't think you or anyone else with those expectations are idiots. I don't know what my expectations were since this is an unprecedented disaster. This is something that happened of historic proportions and our best laid plans, or worst laid plans, were inadequate. But, rather than folks being humbled by a situation and circumstance that humans could not resolve in an instant, the fist shaking starts immediately. That's why I will not join a lynch mob, even though some hard questions need to be asked. But I don't see hard questions being asked, I see people jumping to conclusions and finger pointing long before a post mortem can be done on this sordid mess. Also, as RBA noted, I certainly wasn't talking about the victims, as I pointed out.

Dom Heffner
09-04-2005, 12:46 AM
Good to know Bush took the time to give a shout out to his partying days he spent in the region.

Rojo
09-04-2005, 12:55 AM
I understand your point -- at the end of the day there's probably going to be plenty of blame to throw around. My point, however, is the "hard questions" you alluded to are never asked. Its more than a bit frustrating. Are there people who are quick to deposit everything on Bush's doorstep? Sure. At the same time there are many who think nothing's ever his fault -- and that includes the President himself.

I'm not going to get in the game of what should've been where and when. Let the experts figure that out. All I know is that it took far too long to get in the city and that Bush couldn't be bothered to interrupt his schedule of dog-and-pony events while people died in the streets.

George Foster
09-04-2005, 01:03 AM
C'MON AUGUST 15TH! :lol:

Such ludicrous accusations. How about faulting those at the state and local levels for not being on the ball and taking pre-emptive action. The governor of that state should be shot I guess.

No one knew just how much damage this hurricane was gonna inflict. For cryin' out loud - they weren't even sure, at the last minute, exactly where it was gonna land.

And can the federeal government intervene without the state asking for assistance?

A voice of reason, finally. The only thing wrong with this post was the knowledge of the hurricane hitting land. The local and state officials for 2 days knew where the hurricane was forcast to hit. It is their responsibility to evacate the hospitials and elderly. How many school buses are in the New Orleans school district? 600? 1000? These buses could have moved a lot of people. The local and State officials should have had a plan in place to do just this. This "plan" should have included for instance: The sick and elderly including those in hospitials will be taken to cities a,b and c. Those who could not afford to leave will be taken by school bus to cities a, b, and c. The federal govenment will be ask to assist in building tent shelters, etc. Those cities that are helping will receive federal compensation and compensation for the State of Louisiana. IT IS THE LOCAL AND STATE OFFICIALS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PLAN NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE ASKED TO HELP. 96 hours to respond is such a huge way is not that bad. Can you imagine the time it takes to coordinate a federal response to feed and evacuate 100,000 people? In essence cleaning up the mess left by an irresponsible city and state govenment.

The major damage was not caused by the hurricane, but the levee breaking. This could have happened theoretically on a sunny, clear day with the same horrible results as we see now. I saw today(MSNBC), that the federal govenment offered to strengthen the levee, paying 75% of the cost with the city of New Orleans paying 25%. It was voted down by the city council.

To blame Bush for EVERYTHING is intellectually dishonest.

Rojo
09-04-2005, 02:18 AM
IT IS THE LOCAL AND STATE OFFICIALS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PLAN NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE ASKED TO HELP.

The DHS doesn't agree, unless you don't think this is an Incident of National Significance:


Emphasis on Local Response

All incidents are handled at the lowest possible organizational and jurisdictional level. Police, fire, public health and medical, emergency management, and other personnel are responsible for incident management at the local level. For those events that rise to the level of an Incident of National Significance, the Department of Homeland Security provides operational and/or resource coordination for Federal support to on-scene incident command structures.

Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events

The National Response Plan provides mechanisms for expedited and proactive Federal support to ensure critical life-saving assistance and incident containment capabilities are in place to respond quickly and efficiently to catastrophic incidents. These are high-impact, low-probability incidents, including natural disasters and terrorist attacks that result in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions.

DHS Website (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0569.xml)

George Foster
09-04-2005, 09:55 AM
The DHS doesn't agree, unless you don't think this is an Incident of National Significance:


Emphasis on Local Response

All incidents are handled at the lowest possible organizational and jurisdictional level. Police, fire, public health and medical, emergency management, and other personnel are responsible for incident management at the local level. For those events that rise to the level of an Incident of National Significance, the Department of Homeland Security provides operational and/or resource coordination for Federal support to on-scene incident command structures.

Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events

The National Response Plan provides mechanisms for expedited and proactive Federal support to ensure critical life-saving assistance and incident containment capabilities are in place to respond quickly and efficiently to catastrophic incidents. These are high-impact, low-probability incidents, including natural disasters and terrorist attacks that result in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions.

DHS Website (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0569.xml)


My whole point was it should not have been a catastrophic event if it were handled properly, and the levee was strengthen when it was offered by the feds. If the levee had not broke, the water would not have been turned off, due to a water main brake and the level of suffering would have just been loss of electric which is repairable within days. Having water is EVERYTHING.
No local plan, no local leadership, feds having to clean-up the mess.

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 11:09 AM
To blame Bush for EVERYTHING is intellectually dishonest.

Claiming that everyone is blaming Bush alone for everything is even more intellectually dishonest. In fact, it's just plain old lying.

ochre
09-04-2005, 12:28 PM
My whole point was it should not have been a catastrophic event if it were handled properly, and the levee was strengthen when it was offered by the feds.
You realize that a Hurricane by its very nature is a catastrophic event, right?

westofyou
09-04-2005, 12:53 PM
Claiming that everyone is blaming Bush alone for everything is even more intellectually dishonest. In fact, it's just plain old lying.

But if you scream it long enough it's true FCB.

George Foster
09-04-2005, 02:15 PM
You realize that a Hurricane by its very nature is a catastrophic event, right?

Thinks are going pretty good in Florida after about 5 of them in the past 12 months! They had a plan!

ochre
09-04-2005, 02:17 PM
Thinks are going pretty good in Florida after about 5 of them in the past 12 months! They had a plan!
and they are above sea level.

George Foster
09-04-2005, 02:20 PM
Claiming that everyone is blaming Bush alone for everything is even more intellectually dishonest. In fact, it's just plain old lying.

What is the title of this thread, and what is it about? Do you live in OZ?

ochre
09-04-2005, 02:22 PM
What is the title of this thread, and what is it about? Do you live in OZ?
And as one person typed that in to be the title of the thread, that validates that "everybody" is blaming bush? Or even that anybody is saying he's the only one culpable. We don't need the "Do you live in OZ" ad hominem crap.

GAC
09-04-2005, 04:53 PM
I think the simple magnitude of this storm shows that there can never be enough preparation beforehand. If a catastrpohic earthquke did the same in SF, or any major calamity hit a HUGE metropolis, then I don't care how much planning or foresight any agency did - they are still gonna be set back on their heels and overwhelmed initially. The magnitude/severity of the situation would dictate that.

Talk to some people who are experienced in disaster relief. I'm not trying to put rfs on the spot, but in a conversation with him the other day (as he was waiting to be deployed to the region), he was saying that the numerous relief agencies are ready and were wanting to go in to NO and the surrounding regions. - it was due to the catastrophic damage (flooding) that prevented them from doing so. At the onset, it has everything to do with accessibility, and being able to get the equipment/people in there to handle something of this magnitude.

Have there been mistakes made? Sure has. And God forbid! If any other major metropolis ever gets hit by catastrophe of the MAGNITUDE of this one, there will be logistic problems just as similar to this one caused due to the magnitude of the situation.

Sadly enough - there is no perfect approach - either beforehand or after.

I am laughing at, and really tired of, those from the left who feel they are "experts" in this situation, and knew how and what should have been done. They've been to "ground zero", were able to survey and see first hand what needed to be done and exactly how to do it. Heck - if they had been in charge this hurricane would have never happened. The hot air expelled from most of them would have easily pushed it back out to sea.

The title of this thread implies that Bush should resign (still laugh at that) simply because it happened on his "watch". It's just a totally absurd assumption, based not out of concern for those people in that afflicted region (because Bush resigning is not gonna help those people there one bit, or speed their relief); but simply presented an opportunity for another partisan political attack.

And IMO - that, in and of itself, is shameful.

And then, when some see the absurdity of that suggestion, they "temper" their tone to say "Well - he should at least accept responsibility".

It's just simply sad what some are attempting to do with this tragic situation.

alex trevino
09-04-2005, 04:59 PM
Considering this administration see the terrorist "Boogey men" behind any lamp post wasn't it concievable atleast that N.O. may be a target of a terrorist attack and required a full scale evacution plan?

Problem is Bush can do no wrong in some folks eyes. He has his fair share of apologist on this board.

ochre
09-04-2005, 05:05 PM
Have you heard the Reports of FEMA blocking relief supplies from getting into the city within the first couple of days? I suppose that should just be brushed under the rug?

Continually saying "nobody predicted something like this" as an excuse for why it took 3-4 days for supplies to start trickling in is ludicrous. The results of this Hurricane have pretty much matched the models that have been around for years. The NWS alerts Sunday evening pointed out that levee breaches were likely.

When does a person accept responsibility for what occurs on their watch? There is nothing partisan about watching continued "pass the buck" behavior. I have never understood why Americans allow their Chief Executive to get away with behavior that a public sector company Chief Executive would get fired for. That is a non-partisan statement by the way. It was true for the Bay of Pigs, The bombing of pharmacutical factories in Africa to distract from a scandal and for the current situation in Louisiana. If we are not critical of these situations, regardless of "who" the president happens to be, we have no right to call ourselves Americans. Government is there for its citizens, not the other way around. We need to get back to that.

westofyou
09-04-2005, 05:07 PM
I am laughing at, and really tired of, those from the left who feel they are "experts" in this situation,

That implies the other side has an idea what's going on.

I find that laughable myself.

GAC
09-04-2005, 05:09 PM
Considering this administration see the terrorist "Boogey men" behind any lamp post wasn't it concievable atleast that N.O. may be a target of a terrorist attack and required a full scale evacution plan?

Thanks for continuing to make no sense. Every major US metropolis could conceivably be a target for a terrorist attack. Let's start the evacuations immediately so as to not be caught off guard. ;)

We are in the height of hurricane season - maybe we should play it safe and evac the entire east coast - or at least make those in those "high risk zones" move inland farther till the season is over.


Problem is Bush can do no wrong in some folks eyes.

No one takes that approach. Just shake their heads at some of the absurdity and invalidity of the accusations from some on the left who use a tragic situation for a partisan political attack. It's as simple as that.


He has his fair share of apologist on this board.

And haters, who suggest he should resign because a horiffic hurricane hit NO.

Question: why didn't you pose this question when these other hurricanes hit over the last year or so and did alot of damage? Or is it the magnitude of the damage that determines the resignation factor?

Mother Nature must be a Democrat. It's all part of the grand scheme to embarass Bush. Sound silly? So does what you suggest IMO.

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 05:10 PM
It's just simply sad what some are attempting to do with this tragic situation.

No it's way more sad that you don't hold the president culpable. Fine, if you want to throw in Hagin and Blanco, go ahead, but the Fed's response (and Bush is the Fed's chief executive) is inexcusable. To not criticize it would be a far, far bigger crime.

ochre
09-04-2005, 05:23 PM
Thanks for continuing to make no sense. Every major US metropolis could conceivably be a target for a terrorist attack. Let's start the evacuations immediately so as to not be caught off guard. ;)

We are in the height of hurricane season - maybe we should play it safe and evac the entire east coast - or at least make those in those "high risk zones" move inland farther till the season is over.



No one takes that approach. Just shake their heads at some of the absurdity and invalidity of the accusations from some on the left who use a tragic situation for a partisan political attack. It's as simple as that.



And haters, who suggest he should resign because a horiffic hurricane hit NO.

Question: why didn't you pose this question when these other hurricanes hit over the last year or so and did alot of damage? Or is it the magnitude of the damage that determines the resignation factor?

Mother Nature must be a Democrat. It's all part of the grand scheme to embarass Bush. Sound silly? So does what you suggest IMO.
The fact that New Orleans is the text book Natural Disaster scenario, right up there with San Fran Earthquakes really makes the magnitude of Hurricanes that hit other areas immaterial. The conscious denial of that fact is the only thing that screams 'absurd', or 'invalid'. A coastal area that is below sea level and home to 1+ million people requires special consideration when a Hurricane is approaching. That is the difference.

GAC
09-04-2005, 05:23 PM
Have you heard the Reports of FEMA blocking relief supplies from getting into the city within the first couple of days? I suppose that should just be brushed under the rug?

What did those reports say in their entirety as to WHY Ochre? I dont know - just asking. Accessibility problem maybe?


The NWS alerts Sunday evening pointed out that levee breaches were likely.

Sunday evening? The storm hit the next morning. That gives plenty of time for evacuation doesn't it. I watched the coverage that night also. It's path and other various factors were still in question. What happens if you evac NO (pretty impossible to do in that short of timespan, and when everyone isn't sure), and it turns and levels some other region? Impossible? Well - we got the people of NO out just to be safe - but sorry about those where it really hit.

And most likely, any hurricane, doesn't need to be a Cat 5, would breech those levees. That whole levee system down there has been like that for how long?

It was even pointed out by another poster (and I agreed with their assesment wholeheartedly)....

"New Orleans was designed without respect to the enviroment of the surrounding area, over the years they moved the river and they levved everything in.

They tried to hold nature back and it failed...."

Sadly and tragically enough - this scenario was something waiting to happen - for decades.

And when it does - Bush should resign and be held responsible.

It's simpy absurb, and I will not argue about it one more second Ochre (I ahve too much respect for you to do that). I am simpy addressing what the title of this thread proposes.

Get the politics out of this issue. It has no place being there.

ochre
09-04-2005, 05:32 PM
What did those reports say in their entirety as to WHY Ochre? I dont know - just asking. Accessibility problem maybe?



Sunday evening? The storm hit the next morning. That gives plenty of time for evacuation doesn't it. Most likely, any hurricane, doesn't need to be a Cat 5, would breech those levees. That whole levee system down there has been like that for how long?

It was even pointed out by another poster (and I agreed with their assesment wholeheartedly)....

"New Orleans was designed without respect to the enviroment of the surrounding area, over the years they moved the river and they levved everything in.

They tried to hold nature back and it failed...."

Sadly and tragically enough - this scenario was something waiting to happen - for decades.

And when it does - Bush should resign and be held responsible.

It's simpy absurb, and I will not argue about it one more second Ochre (I ahve too much respect for you to do that). I am simpy addressing what the title of this thread proposes.

Get the politics out of this issue. It has no place being there.
Its not the fact that the catastrophy occured. Its the inadequate response. I'm looking at what limited evidence we have available to us. The evidence is pointing that federal functionaries really dropped the ball. In addition to that we have the Secretary of State on a shoe shopping spree in Manhatten while people are dehydrating and starving to death. It pains a 'Nero-esque' picture to me. One woman in Florida is in risk of being removed from life support and the President can find time to fly in the middle of the night to sign legislation to prevent that, but 10s -- even 100s -- of thousands of people living in the basest of situations affords 2 more days on the ranch?

I have some serious questions about the La Governors culpability. She seems(ed) to be equally asleep at the wheel. But tough questions need to be asked -- and answered -- about all levels of the government in this situation.

I don't know how reliable the information on FEMA stopping relief in the first couple of days is, I was just curious if you had heard it. Ostensibly it is from first hand accounts, but those parties are intrinsicly tied to the situation and possibly biased because of that.

GAC
09-04-2005, 05:32 PM
The fact that New Orleans is the text book Natural Disaster scenario, right up there with San Fran Earthquakes really makes the magnitude of Hurricanes that hit other areas immaterial.

What makes those other regions not "textbook"? It's the peak hurricane season. This storm could have just as easily wiped out various other metropolis' in that region/area that is always vulnerable to hurricane/devastation.

What about the Andrew in '92? Remember it well. Didn't see people making it a partisan issue and calling for Clinton's resignation, or that he accept responsibility.


The conscious denial of that fact is the only thing that screams 'absurd', or 'invalid'. A coastal area that is below sea level and home to 1+ million people requires special consideration when a Hurricane is approaching. That is the difference.

And WHEN did they know for sure that it was gonna hit NO? Time frame? And did that allow state and local officials the time to evac this city? Where is their culpability?

Again - the very night before there was uncertaintly.

Where were the state and local officials of LA on this?

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 05:38 PM
What makes those othre regions not "textbook"?



And WHEN did they know for sure that it was gonna hit NO? Time frame? And did that allow state and local officials the time to evac this city? Where is their culpability?

Again - the very night before there was uncertaintly.

Where were the state and local officials of LA on this?

You're a Christian. Do you believe Pilate should not be held accountable? After all, he washed his hands, too.

All the liberals on this board are willing to concede that there may be culpability up and down the chain of command. The difference between the liberal stance and the conservative seems to be that for the conservatives Bush and Bush alone escapes culpability, even though he is the chief executive of this nation and head of every federal agency in this country. Now why is that?

ochre
09-04-2005, 05:39 PM
What makes those othre regions not "textbook"?



And WHEN did they know for sure that it was gonna hit NO? Time frame? And did that allow state and local officials the time to evac this city? Where is their culpability?

Again - the very night before there was uncertaintly.

Where were the state and local officials of LA on this?
My description of this regions key terrain features would be why those other regions are not textbook.

From what I have seen, they did the best they could evacuating the region. 24, 48, hell even 72 hours isn't much time to move roughly 1.3 million people a significant distance. Military Forces have a hard time accomplishing that level of logistics and they train specifically for it. Add in the less than able-bodied, less fortunate folks and it really is an untenable situation.

So you fill up the "high ground" and hope that relief will follow the storm. I have never said that state and local officials were innocent in this debacle.

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 05:41 PM
.

What about the Andrew in '92? Remember it well. Didn't see people making it a partisan issue and calling for Clinton's resignation, or that he accept responsibility.




I'll bet you remember it well. So well in fact, that it was King Bush I who was in office, August 24, 1992.

Rojo
09-04-2005, 05:43 PM
I am laughing at, and really tired of, those from the left who feel they are "experts" in this situation, and knew how and what should have been done.

I've seen just as much Monday-morning quarterbacking from those who'd shift the blame to Nagin and Blanco.

ochre
09-04-2005, 05:44 PM
I'll bet you remember it well. So well in fact, that it was King Bush I who was in office, August 24, 1992.
Yep, It missed Arkansas, so Clinton was safe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Andrew

RBA
09-04-2005, 05:45 PM
I'll bet you remember it well. So well in fact, that it was King Bush I who was in office, August 24, 1992.

Actually it's one of the reasons the American People voted Bush I out of office.

Puffy
09-04-2005, 05:47 PM
Actually it's one of the reasons the American People voted Bush I out of office.

Just another example of the son not learning from his father's mistakes.

Hello Iraq......

Rojo
09-04-2005, 05:47 PM
What makes those other regions not "textbook"? It's the peak hurricane season. This storm could have just as easily wiped out various other metropolis' in that region/area that is always vulnerable to hurricane/devastation.

What about the Andrew in '92? Remember it well. Didn't see people making it a partisan issue and calling for Clinton's resignation, or that he accept responsibility.



And WHEN did they know for sure that it was gonna hit NO? Time frame? And did that allow state and local officials the time to evac this city? Where is their culpability?

Again - the very night before there was uncertaintly.

Where were the state and local officials of LA on this?

Really, this is just about a bunch of tired excuses. If you want to keep making them, fine, I for one demand more from my elected leaders.

RBA
09-04-2005, 05:49 PM
I've seen just as much Monday-morning quarterbacking from those who'd shift the blame to Nagin and Blanco.

That would include President Bush himself. Who said the response was "unacceptable" . But he latered clarified that remark by saying the Federal response was going well, while the local and state response he had issues with.

pedro
09-04-2005, 05:51 PM
To all the Bush appologists, It seems to me that if George Bush ran over your wife or husband, you'd blame Cadillac for manufacturing the car.

He's the President of the USA, does he bare no responsibily for anything?

traderumor
09-04-2005, 06:36 PM
To all the Bush appologists, It seems to me that if George Bush ran over your wife or husband, you'd blame Cadillac for manufacturing the car.

He's the President of the USA, does he bare no responsibily for anything?You don't want him to bare responsibility for just anything, you want him bare responsibility for everything, anytime something happens that involves real or perceived dependence on the Fed Gov't. That's where I'm coming from. I'll defend anybody in a leadership position when that's being done.

GAC
09-04-2005, 06:55 PM
What is the President's responsibility when a hurricane/disaster hits a region?

And more importantly - what is the responsibility of those on the state and local levels first?

You can call it lame excuses all you want; but a President relies on those multiple agencies who were instituted/ designed to monitor these situations, gather the data, offer advice and proposals to address/counter the situation. Then the President, ANY President, is responsible to enact the emergency legislation that funds/enables those various agencies to act.

Then, and only then, the President can do only one thing - authorize federal action.

At what point in time, while they were tracking Katrina, did they determine it's category, and where it would land? And did that allow them the time to evacuate a city/region of this size?

Because this all seems to be an issue of preemptive action - or lack thereof.

It was a tropical depression on 8/23.

It made landfall in south Florida on August 25th and strengthened to become a category 1 (windspeeds of 75mph or greater) hurricane.

Katrina's winds decreased slightly before regaining hurricane strength in the Gulf of Mexico. Given that Katrina spent only seven hours over land, its strength was not significantly diminished and it quickly re-intensified shortly after moving over the warm waters of the Gulf.

While still in the Gulf, Katrina reached 'major hurricane' status on the afternoon of the 26th.

By 8 a.m. Saturday, August 27th, the eye of the hurricane was located about 180 miles west of Key West, or about 430 miles southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River. Katrina was a Category 3 storm Saturday with 115 mph sustained wind and higher gusts, and it had appeared to be turning toward the Louisiana-Mississippi coastline. But forecasters were uncertain of exactly where it might strike, saying the storm could make landfall anywhere from Florida to Louisiana.

At this point you have 2 days, as they marvel and observe this storm growing and still only knowing the general region at which it might make landfall Louisiana to Florida.

Over the next 48 hours, they observe Katrina grow to a category 5.

It finally hits landfall on the morning of the 29th.

Enough time to evacuate a region (not just NO), and take preventive action?

And some say local and state officials shoulder no responsibility when it's their state about ready to get possibly nailed with one of the worst hurricanes ever... and it all should be laid on Bush.

Have a nice day on that other forum.

I've said all I want on this issue. ;)

ochre
09-04-2005, 07:00 PM
What is the President's responsibility when a hurricane/disaster hits a region?

And more importantly - what is the responsibility of those on the state and local levels first?

You can call it lame excuses all you want; but a President relies on those multiple agencies who were instituted/ designed to monitor these situations, gather the data, offer advice and proposals to address/counter the situation. Then the President, ANY President, is responsible to enact the emergency legislation that funds/enables those various agencies to act.

Then, and only then, the President can do only one thing - authorize federal action.

At what point in time, while they were tracking Katrina, did they determine it's category, and where it would land? And did that allow them the time to evacuate a city/region of this size?

Because this all seems to be an issue of preemptive action - or lack thereof.

It was a tropical depression on 8/23.

It made landfall in south Florida on August 25th and strengthened to become a category 1 (windspeeds of 75mph or greater) hurricane.

Katrina's winds decreased slightly before regaining hurricane strength in the Gulf of Mexico. Given that Katrina spent only seven hours over land, its strength was not significantly diminished and it quickly re-intensified shortly after moving over the warm waters of the Gulf.

While still in the Gulf, Katrina reached 'major hurricane' status on the afternoon of the 26th.

By 8 a.m. Saturday, August 27th, the eye of the hurricane was located about 180 miles west of Key West, or about 430 miles southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River. Katrina was a Category 3 storm Saturday with 115 mph sustained wind and higher gusts, and it had appeared to be turning toward the Louisiana-Mississippi coastline. But forecasters were uncertain of exactly where it might strike, saying the storm could make landfall anywhere from Florida to Louisiana.

At this point you have 2 days, as they marvel and observe this storm growing and still only knowing the general region at which it might make landfall Louisiana to Florida.

Over the next 48 hours, they observe Katrina grow to a category 5.

It finally hits landfall on the morning of the 29th.

Enough time to evacuate a region (not just NO), and take preventive action?

And some say local and state officials shoulder no responsibility when it's their state about ready to get possibly nailed with one of the worst hurricanes ever... and it all should be laid on Bush.

Have a nice day on that other forum.

I've said all I want on this issue. ;)
I am unfamiliar with your credentials in the mass movements of people with a deadline. Would you be so kind as to justify your assumption that 24-48 hours is plenty of time to move 1.3 million people out of the path of this hurricane for the greater New Orleans population alone? A map with major roadways and the number of vehicles that can pass through those corridors in a mass congestion scenerio would be fine.

RBA
09-04-2005, 07:02 PM
And some say local and state officials shoulder no responsibility when it's their state about ready to get possibly nailed with one of the worst hurricanes ever

Who are these some?

westofyou
09-04-2005, 07:03 PM
Have a nice day on that other forum.

Well alrighty then we will.

Chip R
09-04-2005, 07:06 PM
Just remember who becomes President if Bush resigns. And it ain't John Kerry.

ochre
09-04-2005, 07:09 PM
Let me guess...

Starts with a "Dick" and ends with a "Cheney"?

Falls City Beer
09-04-2005, 07:11 PM
Let me guess...

Starts with a "Dick" and ends with a "Cheney"?

I'm thinkin' it would end with a "coronary." :devil:

Rojo
09-04-2005, 08:28 PM
local and state officials shoulder no responsibility when it's their state about ready to get possibly nailed with one of the worst hurricanes ever... and it all should be laid on Bush.


You don't want him to bare responsibility for just anything, you want him bare responsibility for everything, anytime something happens that involves real or perceived dependence on the Fed Gov't.

This is so typical. The above statements are two sides of the same false dilemma (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm) coin. Nobody, and its been repeated ad naseum, believes the Bush is responsibilty for everything under the sun and nobody, also repeated, believes that the local officials should be left off the hook. So why keep bringing it up?

I fear that you've been bamboozled by the spin-meister's logic-defying double-talk for so long now that you've internalized it, coughing it up when needed.

traderumor
09-04-2005, 08:44 PM
This is so typical. The above statements are two sides of the same false dilemma (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm) coin. Nobody, and its been repeated ad naseum, believes the Bush is responsibilty for everything under the sun and nobody, also repeated, believes that the local officials should be left off the hook. So why keep bringing it up?

I fear that you've been bamboozled by the spin-meister's logic-defying double-talk for so long now that you've internalized it, coughing it up when needed.Reread my post before bringing out your Logic 101 arsenal.

Redsfaithful
09-04-2005, 09:38 PM
you want him bare responsibility for everything

I re-read your post, and saw the above which seems to be exactly what Rojo is talking about. No one is saying Bush is 100% responsible for the 10,000+ deaths. But just because all the blame can't be laid at his feet doesn't mean he hasn't failed spectacularly in the last week.

pedro
09-04-2005, 09:49 PM
You don't want him to bare responsibility for just anything, you want him bare responsibility for everything, anytime something happens that involves real or perceived dependence on the Fed Gov't. That's where I'm coming from. I'll defend anybody in a leadership position when that's being done.

I'll refer you to my first post in this thread.

link (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=823018&postcount=16)

I never said he was soley responsible for the poor disaster response. I just don't think he did nearly as a good a job dealing with it as he should have. That's where I'm coming from. This isn't a partisan issue although you seem to want to make it one. If another President had done this, I would be equally appalled.

Rojo
09-04-2005, 09:58 PM
Reread my post before bringing out your Logic 101 arsenal.

I reread it and my statement stands.

Caveat Emperor
09-05-2005, 01:44 AM
What is the President's responsibility when a hurricane/disaster hits a region?

Maybe I'm being a little "old fashioned" here (tough, I know, when you're but the ripe old age of 23), but wouldn't it be nice if the President of the United States found time in his busy vacation schedule to be in Washington on the job and ready to coordinate things when there was a Category 5 hurricane heading directly for the United States?

Would it have made any difference? Maybe not...but maybe if the President is around, maybe somebody from EPA or the National Weather Service hands someone in his office a memo titled "New Orleans WILL BE DESTROYED by any strong hurricane that hits" and maybe he gets into action.

But, you know...maybe playing "American Idol" on Tuesday, August 30th (the day the levees broke) was a better use of George W. Bush's time.
http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/9830/bushie0xp.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Yahoo News Photo (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/480/capm10208301856)

But, who am I to judge? The President has failed miserably in coordinating actions, displaying gross ignorance on the subject in his "Good Morning America" (or maybe "Today" show, I don't watch morning TV -- O&A baby!) interview where he stated that "Nobody thought the levees would break." I guess by "Nobody" he means "Nobody that took a subscription to the Times Picayune or ever bothered to read any reports on the history of New Orleans."

The people who serve at the pleasure of the President, from his "handlers" who provide him (as with all sitting Presidents -- lets be fair, any Presidential screw up is usually because somebody else in Washington didn't do their job and adequately inform the President about something) the information he needs to competently govern, to the people he has put in charge of various federal organizations, have all failed miserably in the task of preventing further suffering and saving people's lives. For that, I blame the President and his administration.

Harry Truman must be spinning in his grave, because for this administration and their apologists, the Buck not only doesn't stop there...it runs two red lights, gets on the expressway and does 90 all the way to anyplace else.

RBA
09-05-2005, 01:52 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)


September 5, 2005
White House Enacts a Plan to Ease Political Damage

By ADAM NAGOURNEY (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ADAM NAGOURNEY&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ADAM NAGOURNEY&inline=nyt-per) and ANNE E. KORNBLUT (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ANNE E. KORNBLUT&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ANNE E. KORNBLUT&inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 - Under the command of President Bush's two senior political advisers, the White House rolled out a plan this weekend to contain the political damage from the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.

It orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region, leading up to an extraordinary return visit by Mr. Bush planned for Monday, directed administration officials not to respond to attacks from Democrats on the relief efforts, and sought to move the blame for the slow response to Louisiana (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/louisiana/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) state officials, according to Republicans familiar with the White House plan.

The effort is being directed by Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and his communications director, Dan Bartlett. It began late last week after Congressional Republicans called White House officials to register alarm about what they saw as a feeble response by Mr. Bush to the hurricane, according to Republican Congressional aides.

As a result, Americans watching television coverage of the disaster this weekend began to see, amid the destruction and suffering, some of the most prominent members of the administration - Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense; and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state - touring storm-damaged communities.

Mr. Bush is to return to Louisiana and Mississippi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/mississippi/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) on Monday; his first visit, on Friday, left some Republicans cringing, in part because the president had little contact with residents left homeless.

Republicans said the administration's effort to stanch the damage had been helped by the fact that convoys of troops and supplies had begun to arrive by the time the administration officials turned up. All of those developments were covered closely on television.

In many ways, the unfolding public relations campaign reflects the style Mr. Rove has brought to the political campaigns he has run for Mr. Bush. For example, administration officials who went on television on Sunday were instructed to avoid getting drawn into exchanges about the problems of the past week, and to turn the discussion to what the government is doing now.

"We will have time to go back and do an after-action report, but the time right now is to look at what the enormous tasks ahead are," Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, said on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

One Republican with knowledge of the effort said that Mr. Rove had told administration officials not to respond to Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the hurricane in the belief that the president was in a weak moment and that the administration should not appear to be seen now as being blatantly political. As with others in the party, this Republican would discuss the deliberations only on condition of anonymity because of keen White House sensitivity about how the administration and its strategy would be perceived.

In a reflection of what has long been a hallmark of Mr. Rove's tough political style, the administration is also working to shift the blame away from the White House and toward officials of New Orleans and Louisiana who, as it happens, are Democrats.

"The way that emergency operations act under the law is the responsibility and the power, the authority, to order an evacuation rests with state and local officials," Mr. Chertoff said in his television interview. "The federal government comes in and supports those officials."

That line of argument was echoed throughout the day, in harsher language, by Republicans reflecting the White House line.

In interviews, these Republicans said that the normally nimble White House political operation had fallen short in part because the president and his aides were scattered outside Washington on vacation, leaving no one obviously in charge at a time of great disruption. Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush were in Texas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/texas/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), while Vice President Dick Cheney was at his Wyoming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/wyoming/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) ranch.

Mr. Bush's communications director, Nicolle Devenish, was married this weekend in Greece (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/greece/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), and a number of Mr. Bush's political advisers - including Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman - attended the wedding.

Ms. Rice did not return to Washington until Thursday, after she was spotted at a Broadway show and shopping for shoes, an image that Republicans said buttressed the notion of a White House unconcerned with tragedy.

These officials said that Mr. Bush and his political aides rapidly changed course in what they acknowledged was a belated realization of the situation's political ramifications. As is common when this White House confronts a serious problem, management was quickly taken over by Mr. Rove and a group of associates including Mr. Bartlett. Neither man responded to requests for comment.

White House advisers said that Mr. Bush expressed alarm after his return to Washington from the Gulf Coast.

One senior White House official said that Mr. Bush appeared at a senior staff meeting in the Situation Room on Friday and called the results on the ground "unacceptable." At the encouragement of Mr. Bartlett, officials said, he repeated the comment later in the Rose Garden, the start of this campaign.

ochre
09-05-2005, 01:56 AM
will rice be wearing her $1000 shoes, or will she be concerned with getting them muddy?

WVRedsFan
09-05-2005, 03:02 AM
After watching all of this and reading all I could stomach, I have to wonder what would have happened if William Jefferson Clinton was still President of these United States. I'll preface my remarks by saying that I am no fan of Clinton.

I'm certainly not sure that the government would have acted swifter than it did under Bush, but you can bet your posterior that Clinton wouldn't have been playing his sax while New Orleans flooded. You can bet that he wouldn't have been giddy and smiling as he first surveyed the damage (Busch's smiles and smirks just ticked me off). You can be assured that he would have been in the public eye in the days before the disaster instead of "relaxing on the ranch and trying to play the guitar." That's the problem here. If Bush had acted like he cared one bit about the situation, no firestorm would have erupted.

And yet, why not? He's a lame duck with so sense of history. He's proven it time after time. No, he didn't know about the dire situation because he delegates everything. He left it in charge of underlings. And when the fertilizer hit the air conditioner, the spin maching goes into action.

I've never understood the popularity of this man. I never will no matter how many times his apologists offer up a spin. History will show that he became President through the Electoral College (which I still think is the best way) and a poor candidate who couldn't be elected to dog catcher outside of the Northeast.

So, here we are. Let's pray that no more crisises happen in the next 2.5 years.

Then again, I'm having trouble coming up with anyone that's better. That's really sad.

Caveat Emperor
09-05-2005, 03:40 AM
After watching all of this and reading all I could stomach, I have to wonder what would have happened if William Jefferson Clinton was still President of these United States.

Funny you should ask:

USA TODAY: Clinton Makes Disaster Declarations (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/huricane/1999/atlantic/wfclintn.htm)


Clinton makes disaster declarations

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand (AP) - Calling Hurricane Floyd ''one of the most serious hurricanes ever to threaten the United States,'' President Clinton issued disaster declarations for Florida and Georgia in anticipation of the destruction the storm may wreak on the southeastern U.S. coast.

The president issued the declarations Wednesday morning before leaving Queenstown for Christchurch for a state visit with New Zealand Prime Minister Jane Shipley. He planned to return home immediately after that visit to oversee emergency efforts for the storm, which he called ''one of the most serious hurricanes ever to threaten the United States, if the predictions of its force and scope hold true.''

''I ask all of you here to remember my fellow Americans,'' Clinton said. ''I am going to fly home, and we'll make the best job of it that we can.''

The early declaration ''enables state and local governments to get equipment and other things ... in place to begin recovery efforts at the earliest possible moment,'' White House spokesman Barry Toiv said in Washington.

Clinton spoke twice Wednesday with James Lee Witt, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to keep abreast of Hurricane Floyd's progress. He also consulted with Vice President Al Gore.

Witt and Gore placed a conference call late Friday afternoon to the governors and other state officials of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina to give them the most up-to-date forecast data on Floyd's likely path, a White House official said.

At 8 p.m. ET, Floyd's center was north of Abaco Island, or about 205 miles east-southeast of Cape Canaveral, Fla. It was moving north-northwest about 12 mph and this motion was expected to continue through Wednesday.

Some 2 million coastal residents in Florida and Georgia have been urged to leave their homes for safe haven.

Clinton and Gore communicated the declarations directly to the governors of Florida and Georgia, according to administration officials.

The massive storm also prompted Clinton to cut short a day of rest planned for Hawaii on the way back from New Zealand, where he had attended the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

By canceling the Hawaii visit, Clinton will be back in Washington on Wednesday night, instead of Thursday morning.

''The president wants to return quickly to stay on top of the hurricane developments,'' said Clinton spokesman Jake Siewert.

The president has made a practice of visiting the sites of major disasters to review relief operations and comfort victims. But such visits often are delayed until the logistics of the president's visit won't interfere with relief efforts.

The declaration allows FEMA to begin supporting state and local authorities.

"Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize and provide ... equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the disaster,'' according to the announcement from the White House.

So, to summarize, William Jefferson Clinton:

1. Skips vacation when a storm is approaching the United States in order to be in Washington to get the latest updates and help coordinate federal response.

2. Issues disaster declarations PRIOR TO THE STORM HITTING, so that FEMA can immediately begin work on preparing the area for the storm and coming in quickly after the storm, avoiding any stupid red-tape argument about FEMA needing state permission or personal invitation from the Governor's fourth cousin twice-removed before they can get involved in any activities.

3. Was in contact with the governors of the affected states, along with the vice president and the director of FEMA, in order to coordinate response to the affected area.

I'd comment further, but the facts simply speak volumes about how two different disasters were handled and prepared for by the people who run our country.

WVRedsFan
09-05-2005, 04:07 AM
I guess it's way too late to be posting, but tomorrow is a holiday for some of us. Me, at least. In my 20 years in the insurance business, I've seen my share of disasters. None of them are fun and this one has made my blood boil, Why? Just the attitude expressed by our government. Yes, this was a disaster beyond all others, but why couldn't we have done better? Paying attention should have been the first thing, but everyone seemed to be on vacation.

This is not political, no matter our attention to who is in charge. It was a huge screw-up from the get-go. Would President Clinton have handled it better than President Bush? I think so. In fact, I think almost anyone could have, but that's not the point. The point is the ball was dropped and I am at a loss as to why. Someone will get to the bottom of this. And rightly so.

Give a good thought to our own RFS62 and others unnamed who will be going in to help these people get back to something normal sometime. I wish all of them the best and hope all of this is just a bad memory soon.

redsrule2500
09-05-2005, 04:41 AM
Ha ha ha...

I won't even give this thread the time to respond with anytthing more than...ha ha ha ha ha.

Dan
09-05-2005, 09:59 AM
Funny you should ask:

USA TODAY: Clinton Makes Disaster Declarations (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/huricane/1999/atlantic/wfclintn.htm)


So, to summarize, William Jefferson Clinton:

1. Skips vacation when a storm is approaching the United States in order to be in Washington to get the latest updates and help coordinate federal response.

2. Issues disaster declarations PRIOR TO THE STORM HITTING, so that FEMA can immediately begin work on preparing the area for the storm and coming in quickly after the storm, avoiding any stupid red-tape argument about FEMA needing state permission or personal invitation from the Governor's fourth cousin twice-removed before they can get involved in any activities.

3. Was in contact with the governors of the affected states, along with the vice president and the director of FEMA, in order to coordinate response to the affected area.

I'd comment further, but the facts simply speak volumes about how two different disasters were handled and prepared for by the people who run our country.

No no no no no no NO! Clinton lied about getting a b---j-- so anything and everything he ever did is completely null and void. :bang:

traderumor
09-05-2005, 10:03 AM
You don't want him to bare responsibility for just anything, you want him bare responsibility for everything, anytime something happens that involves real or perceived dependence on the Fed Gov't.Ok, since there appears to be some reading difficulties, the above statement has "everything" modified by "anytime something happens that involves real or perceived dependence on the Fed Gov't." So, the reference wasn't just to the Katrina events, but to his entire tenure. I've followed enough of these types of threads and read enough of "this Administration is the worst ever" on nearly every imaginable topic to make such a statement.

Dan
09-05-2005, 10:19 AM
What is the President's responsibility when a hurricane/disaster hits a region?

The "region" that it hit was The United States of America. And the President is the President of The United States of America.

traderumor
09-05-2005, 10:27 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

For those interested in some facts. I think there are some good points, and contrary to the label of being a "Bush appologist [sic]," as I've said earlier, hard questions need to be asked on the relief and the planning. I think the most important point with respect to planning is that the levees were a long term project with a projected completion date of 2015. Much is made of the funding cuts, but assigning those as a major factor in how events transpired seems to be more than a bit misleading. Of course, that doesn't fit the talking point that the money wasn't there because of the war in Iraq, does it?

As for Bush's comments on the levee break not being anticipated, one would have to assume that he is one of the stupidest men alive or thinks we are all stupid to simply mean that this scenario had not been discussed, ever, by any one. But keep running with those sound bytes. The media has trained this culture well in doing that.

Dan
09-05-2005, 10:28 AM
OK I want to make a couple points here...

When one adopts an ideology of Personal Responsiblity, you end up with what you have in New Orleans. This President's administration expects people who have literally lost EVERYTHING to take responsibility for themselves. While I don't think this is necessarily a race thing in the sense that there was some secret Presidential order saying "let's take things a bit slow down there cause all that's left is [black people]," I do believe that our President has a signiifcant inability to relate to people who have not had things handed to them on a silver platter their whole lives.

What's even more unfortunate is that to some of us, the lack of that quality has always been evident and we've been screaming about it for 6 years (since the start of the first Bush campaign). Now the results of having ideology trump humanity are being seen quite clearly in New Orleans.

It was Bush's policies, based on neo-Con ideology which put in place the concept of "states ask the feds for help and screw 'em if they don't." Ultimately, Bush IS responsible, either for instituting a policy which has proven to be severely limiting, or for putting in place those policy makers (Rove?) that instituted said policy.

GAC
09-05-2005, 10:43 AM
I am unfamiliar with your credentials in the mass movements of people with a deadline. Would you be so kind as to justify your assumption that 24-48 hours is plenty of time to move 1.3 million people out of the path of this hurricane for the greater New Orleans population alone? A map with major roadways and the number of vehicles that can pass through those corridors in a mass congestion scenerio would be fine.

I never made the assumption, nor said I had the credentials, that it could be done. Go back and re-read what I stated. I was suggesting just the opposite. Yet some of you were saying it should have been done. So what are your credentials in the mass movement of people during an impending crisis?

I simply went to the NWS and the NOAA and saw their daily tracking of this storm from the 25th to the 28th. Two days before it hit there was still uncertainty (as it is with most hurricanes) as to exactly where it was gonna hit. The NWS said it could land anywhere from the Florida panhandle to the Louisiana coast. But was that giving the appropriate people and agencies enough time to react? That is all I've stated.

Evacuation orders were coming from all quarters (local, state, and federal) before this thing hit.

And New Orleans did have elaborate evacuation plans, and successfully evacuating 80% of the population. The trouble is that not even the most elaborate emergency plans survive contact with a real catastrophe: Levees break, people remain overly hopeful, people refuse to leave, people can't leave for reasons other than those that were projected, essential helpers don't do their jobs, etc.

Now some are saying that it's nothing but lame excuses to try and fault LA state and local officials. Really?

Less then 48 hours beforew it hits, on Saturday, August 27th, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin declares a state of emergency and urges residents in low-lying areas to evacuate (not mandatory). Katrina is a Category 3 storm. At this stage, where it is gonna precisely land is still unsure; but Nagin and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour take the necessary precautions and issue orders to evacuate.

On Sunday, August 28th, Katrina grows into a Category 5 storm with 255 km/h winds and heads for the northern Gulf coast. Nagin orders a mandatory evacuation for New Orleans. But 10 shelters are also set up, including the Superdome, for those unable to leave.

So less then 24 hours before this thing is to hit he makes it mandatory.

Monday, Aug. 29, Katrina, a Category 4 hurricane with 230 km/h winds, makes landfall near Buras, Louisiana, at 6:10 a.m. President George W. Bush makes emergency disaster declarations for Louisiana and Mississippi, freeing up federal funds.

Nagin is blaming the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon, and President Bush's dog Barney for failing to provide assistance fast enough. Nagin claims he was confused about where state and local authority end and federal authority begins, but failed to explain why he waited until the last minute to issue mandatory evacuation orders in preparation for the biggest disaster to hit the city since the British attacked in 1815.

He also seemed confused about his role as the city's premier elected leader, whose primary responsibility is to marshal what resources he has locally and use them to the benefit of the people. So, while he was screaming for not enough buses for the beleaguered maybe he can explain why he allowed hundreds of school and mass transit buses to become casualties of Katrina?

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050901/capt.flpc21109012015.hurricane_katrina_flpc211.jpg ?x=380&y=235&sig=NbUvEfVIaferkxoZTiys0Q--

The anti-Bush crowd is also blaming the White House for skimping on flood control funds – which is true. But as usual, they conveniently ignore the other side of the story, which is that their hero, Bill Clinton, did the same thing, even killing an annual $120 million hurricane initiative funded since 1965. In fact, 10 years ago, the Clinton administration cut 98 flood control projects, including one in New Orleans, saying such efforts should be local projects, not national.

I have no problem, and even agree, that the federal agencies were slow to respond afterwards. But I totally disagree with those who are now saying that was motivated by racism or lack of care for the poor (and yes, many are already saying that), or simply not caring. Those are absurb, reckless, and irresponsible charges IMO.

I simply think the magnitude of this storm, which didn't reach category 5 until the day before it hit, caught everyone of guard, and also, due to the devastation, greatly hindered trhe relief efforts afterward.

GAC
09-05-2005, 10:45 AM
The "region" that it hit was The United States of America. And the President is the President of The United States of America.

He released federal funding the same day it hit. So what else was he suppose to do?

Falls City Beer
09-05-2005, 11:09 AM
But I totally disagree with those who are now saying that was motivated by racism or lack of care for the poor (and yes, many are already saying that), or simply not caring

I don't think it was racially motivated either. But I don't think this President, in the end, is take-charge enough when it comes to the Federal government relieving the suffering of its citizens. I blame him for a lack of urgency, not racism.

Sure, it's great he released "funding" the same day, but as President, you've got to be the one hollering at the cavalry when you see human bodies floating through the streets of New Orleans. You've got to kick down every wall of bureaucracy standing in your way.

No excuses. Save Americans. No excuses.

GAC
09-05-2005, 11:16 AM
I don't think it was racially motivated either. But I don't think this President, in the end, is take-charge enough when it comes to the Federal government relieving the suffering of its citizens. I blame him for a lack of urgency, not racism.

Sure, it's great he released "funding" the same day, but as President, you've got to be the one hollering at the cavalry when you see human bodies floating through the streets of New Orleans. You've got to kick down every wall of bureaucracy standing in your way.

No excuses. Save Americans. No excuses.

I thoroughly agree with that sentiment. He did that "rallying" in the immediate aftermath of 9-11; but dropped the ball here, in that sense.

If Bush's advisors really wanted to help his sagging ratings, then this presented a golden opportunity.

They are definitely scrambling right now.

traderumor
09-05-2005, 11:18 AM
OK I want to make a couple points here...

When one adopts an ideology of Personal Responsiblity, you end up with what you have in New Orleans. This President's administration expects people who have literally lost EVERYTHING to take responsibility for themselves. While I don't think this is necessarily a race thing in the sense that there was some secret Presidential order saying "let's take things a bit slow down there cause all that's left is [black people]," I do believe that our President has a signiifcant inability to relate to people who have not had things handed to them on a silver platter their whole lives.

What's even more unfortunate is that to some of us, the lack of that quality has always been evident and we've been screaming about it for 6 years (since the start of the first Bush campaign). Now the results of having ideology trump humanity are being seen quite clearly in New Orleans.

It was Bush's policies, based on neo-Con ideology which put in place the concept of "states ask the feds for help and screw 'em if they don't." Ultimately, Bush IS responsible, either for instituting a policy which has proven to be severely limiting, or for putting in place those policy makers (Rove?) that instituted said policy.There have been a lot of potential legitimate complaints in this thread, but this is one of the most ridiculous theories I've seen yet.

westofyou
09-05-2005, 11:20 AM
Ha ha ha...

I won't even give this thread the time to respond with anytthing more than...ha ha ha ha ha.

This adds nothing to the tread, nothing at all... in fact it's moronic posts like this that are a main reason political threads go awry.

Falls City Beer
09-05-2005, 11:54 AM
I know people (mostly Republicans) are getting all huffy about calls for accountability, claiming that they're nothing but partisan haranguing, but I'd like any of you who take that stance to tell that Mr Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, who has heard and seen first hand, his parish destroyed by this flood. When a man like Mr. Broussard demands accountability (his quote: "Who should be fired?"), I listen. I don't listen to a bunch of Republicans on a message board or Hillary Clinton, or President Bush, or Michael Chertoff. I listen to Aaron Broussard.

DunnersGrl44
09-05-2005, 12:15 PM
I lived in Puerto Rico from 88-96, so i was right in the middle of Hurricane Hugo if anyone remembers that. Puerto Rico, was messed up, really messed up, but not nearly as bad as La, My point it, i know Katrina was a CAT 5 hurricane and Hugo was only a CAT 4, but either way, La, would of been equally destroyed. My point is, If Katrina would of hit Puerto Rico, The Island would be a little messy, and there would be about 8-10 deaths. Why does that have to happen. Puerto Rico would of been fine, because all of their construction is based around Hurricanes. I think that all houses and buildings should be the same way. Spend some exta cash and make your house a little stronger.
Bush should be blamed?? I can think of about 15 other people that should be blamed before Bush, What is the point of pointing fingers if it doesn't matter. god bless the people affected by this.

Dan
09-05-2005, 01:48 PM
I thoroughly agree with that sentiment. He did that "rallying" in the immediate aftermath of 9-11; but dropped the ball here, in that sense.

If Bush's advisors really wanted to help his sagging ratings, then this presented a golden opportunity.

They are definitely scrambling right now.

His ratings? People were dying, GAC. Who cares aabout ratings when there's American lives to be saved?

Redsfaithful
09-05-2005, 01:51 PM
Puerto Rico would of been fine, because all of their construction is based around Hurricanes.

The hurricane alone didn't do this. The flooding, brought on by the levee breaks, is what caused the majority of the damage.

Redsfaithful
09-05-2005, 01:53 PM
This adds nothing to the tread, nothing at all... in fact it's moronic posts like this that are a main reason political threads go awry.

And yet not a mod in sight, I guess because posting idiotic meaningless tripe isn't against the rules.

Dan
09-05-2005, 01:55 PM
There have been a lot of potential legitimate complaints in this thread, but this is one of the most ridiculous theories I've seen yet.

Why is it ridiculous? Doesn't it make sense that a state with few resources (like LA) would have a harder time assessing their needs after a catastrophe and then relaying them back to the appropriate agencies than a state with an abundance of resources?

I just think the policy structure put in place by the ideologues in charge really put everyone in a bind so that quick action was all but impossible to take. (If you'll realize, the response in MS has been slow going also, it's just that the flooding and people who stayed in NOLA really exacerbated the problem.

ochre
09-05-2005, 02:11 PM
The hurricane alone didn't do this. The flooding, brought on by the levee breaks, is what caused the majority of the damage.
Yep. The fact that New Orleans sits below the level of the surrounding bodies of water continues to be brushed aside. That is the unique factor in this equation. That is the reason this scenario has been analyzed for years. That is the reason to be outraged that those years of analysis have led to they unconscionable results we are seeing on television.

Mississippi is in bad shape too. That will be compounded by New Orleans getting all the attention. Camp Shelby is the base that the National Guard forces are working out of. Saturday night there were at least 9 shots fired in that general area (just outside the Camp). Keep RFS in your thoughts. He's in for a rough week or two as this all sorts out.

ochre
09-05-2005, 02:13 PM
And yet not a mod in sight, I guess because posting idiotic meaningless tripe isn't against the rules.
Pretty much. I could delete it, but what would that accomplish? I suppose I could warn that poster, but what rule did he break? It hasn't gone "excessive" in its trolling at this stage. We work to be open to as many varying perspectives as possible. Sometimes there is a price to pay for that level of openness.

paintmered
09-05-2005, 02:52 PM
Pretty much. I could delete it, but what would that accomplish? I suppose I could warn that poster, but what rule did he break? It hasn't gone "excessive" in its trolling at this stage. We work to be open to as many varying perspectives as possible. Sometimes there is a price to pay for that level of openness.

What he said.

It's also a major reason we have that handy dandy rep system.

RFS62
09-05-2005, 06:49 PM
Yep. The fact that New Orleans sits below the level of the surrounding bodies of water continues to be brushed aside. That is the unique factor in this equation. That is the reason this scenario has been analyzed for years. That is the reason to be outraged that those years of analysis have led to they unconscionable results we are seeing on television.

Mississippi is in bad shape too. That will be compounded by New Orleans getting all the attention. Camp Shelby is the base that the National Guard forces are working out of. Saturday night there were at least 9 shots fired in that general area (just outside the Camp). Keep RFS in your thoughts. He's in for a rough week or two as this all sorts out.


I'm here now. Waiting on clearance to come through to get into Mississippi tomorrow. Should have the paperwork in an hour or two. I'll be looking at a school complex in Buloxi first.

Getting ready to go out and try to find some mosquito repellant, reports are they're getting pretty bad. All the pawn and gun shops have been looted in Buloxi and Gulfport and the surrounding areas. Many reports of lawlessness and desparate people doing crazy things. I've got two 5 gallon gas containers bungee corded to the roof rack, in case I can't get gas to get back out.

Passed many convoys of National Guard and private relief organizations coming down. Countless truckloads of water and supplies. The closer you get to the gulf, the more you realize it's a military zone now.

Tomorrow I head in. Should be something.

I started reading some of this thread, sitting here wating for the cleanence paperwork. It's making my head hurt.

Just to clarify what I've been saying since day one.

1. This scenario was well known throughout the disaster relief community. This is without question. Anyone who acts like it wasn't doesn't know what they're talking about.

2. Whoever is found to be in charge for stopping the water and food from being either driven or air dropped into the superdome and convention center should be tarred and feathered, no matter who it is. Three days of needless suffering. There is no acceptable excuse.

3. There is no way to evacuate New Orleans. No way. Even if there was, many thousands of people wouldn't go. This is a fact, and everyone in the disaster relief community knows it. The pissing match over this is a joke.

4. FEMA and the feds and all the other agencies and private organizations will go on to many great things to help these people in the next few years. It will be the biggest relief effort ever mounted, and the costliest. It's a damn shame that a failure at the top for those three days will be how it's all remembered, but it must be remembered, so it will never happen again.

If you can and you want to help, give some money to charity, my favorite is the Red Cross. They are always there and they do tireless, wonderful work.

I have no doubt that blame will be assigned and several will take the fall in this. It's politicized beyond belief now.

I probably won't have enough time to keep up with it for a while now, so you guys will have to decide who to flog and in what order.

redsrule2500
09-05-2005, 07:07 PM
States have responsiblities, stupid liberals.

Falls City Beer
09-05-2005, 07:18 PM
Troll. Somebody stuff this punk in his locker.

ochre
09-05-2005, 07:30 PM
Don't troll threads 2500. You've made it clear how you feel about this thread. Unless you have something of substance to add, move along.

GAC
09-05-2005, 09:22 PM
I know people (mostly Republicans) are getting all huffy about calls for accountability, claiming that they're nothing but partisan haranguing, but I'd like any of you who take that stance to tell that Mr Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, who has heard and seen first hand, his parish destroyed by this flood. When a man like Mr. Broussard demands accountability (his quote: "Who should be fired?"), I listen. I don't listen to a bunch of Republicans on a message board or Hillary Clinton, or President Bush, or Michael Chertoff. I listen to Aaron Broussard.

And the parrish was destroyed by what?.... the hurricane (flooding).

And I fully understand some's anger and frustration. I'd probaly be blowing my top too if in that situation. But some are making outrageous claims and accusations borne from that frustration that aren't making sense.

What about those individual's personal accountability, when it was feasible, to get themselves and their families out? Any accountability there at all?

I have no problem whatsoever that people want to be upset that the volatile levee system has been neglected by the federal government (funding cuts) and contributed to this. And I hope they learn/realize from this catastrophe that more needs to be done if possible to improve this system. But is that even possible from an engineering perspective That I don't know. Bush cut funding. Clinton also cut funding to the NO levees and other flood control projects for NO, and said such efforts should be local not nationalized. Sadly enough, programs like these, deemed not high profile by the federal government, are ALWAYS gonna be victims of budget cuts.

This is, and has been, the mindset in Washington for quite some time. So it's not simply about Bush.

And what about all those people that refused to leave? Was listening to the police chief of NO Edwin Compass tonight on the news and he was saying that they couldn't get people, even at the risk of losing their lives, of leaving their homes prior to the storm, and that they still can't get people to leave NOW that the city is basically destroyed..."“There are no jobs, there are no homes to go to, no hotels to go to-there is absolutely nothing here. We advise people that this city has been destroyed. It has completely been destroyed. We try to direct them to get out of town so that they can get with family members in other parts of the country or other parts of the state that will benefit them more.”

And yet, according to him, that refuse to leave. And while I have compassion for them and want to help (and have been) - I don't understand their decison-making process through all this. And then when the storm hits, takes lives, and causes massive property loss - they want to blame Bush and the federal government? Doesn't make sense at all to me.

No major city - whether it's NO, LA, NYC, or wherever, has the bureaucracy in place to deal with what we just saw in NO. When it has happened in the past we have seen pandemonium and a mess. And if /when it happens in the future we'll see it again.

ochre
09-05-2005, 09:35 PM
Listen to Broussard. He's mad because FEMA blocked the deliver of bulk drinking water and Diesel fuel. He's mad because no outside aid came in to help evacuate those that couldn't easily be evacuated (the manager of the building he did his meet the press interview from for example, you know the one who received calls everyday last week from his mother in a nursing home asking if somebody was coming to get them out as the water was rising. Well the calls stopped on Friday as she drowned that day.). There is only so much that can be expected from the local authorities in any catastrophe of this nature. That's why FEMA exists.

paintmered
09-05-2005, 09:38 PM
This is stictly a "paint doesn't know the answer and wants to educate himself" kind of question.

Is the role of FEMA strictly an organizational role for other aid organizations, or are they the ones who are responsible for distrubuting the aid? What is their role in the case of a natural disaster?

RBA
09-05-2005, 09:38 PM
GAC, you know we expect better than that. Can you provide us the link to back up your claim...


Clinton also cut funding to the NO levees and other flood control projects for NO, and said such efforts should be local not nationalized.

Please.

GAC
09-05-2005, 09:41 PM
I've got two 5 gallon gas containers bungee corded to the roof rack, in case I can't get gas to get back out.

Understand why you are doing that; but excuse me if that worries the hell out of me. ;)


Tomorrow I head in. Should be something.

You're in my prayers buddy.

And you're absolutely right on the other points you made as well. This is not, and should not be, a political issue. And I've said that from the very beginning. I understand people's anger and frustration, whether they are in NO or those of us "observing from the outside looking in".

But cooler heads need to prevail, and our main concern is not to be pointing fingers, but to help these people.

I have completely stopped watching media coverage of this simply because of the partisan finger pointing and accusations from both sides of the spectrum. Whenever I see someone coming on with an editorial or viewpoint on this situation I turn it off.

I apologize to anyone whom I've upset over my views on this situation. I do beleive that the federal government was slow to react. But I don't think it was due to some of the reasoning being thrown out there by some - not caring for the poor or minorities.

I think that ALL agencies - from the local, state, and federal levels got "set back on their heels" when this thing hit, and sadly enough, it has taken them several days to set it right. It seems thing are starting to improve greatly with the aid/relief efforts, and that is what is important to me right now - not what we didn't do, but what we are doing now.

The fact is that NO's has never been READY for a storm of this magnitude. And it's very sad that something like this had to happen to possibly open some eyes.

RBA
09-05-2005, 09:48 PM
Nevermind GAC, I found your sources. All right wing blogs with no direct sources. Don't worry, I'm sure the info will bounce around right wing radio, get in numerous conservative editorials and eventually work their way onto the Washington Times and finally Fox News and CNN.

RBA
09-05-2005, 09:54 PM
Well, you can't tell me Bush and Karl Rove don't know how to exploit tragedies and people for political gain.

From the Whitehouse.gov website


@import url(/css/hurricane.css);http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/hurricane/images/titlebar2005.jpg

Reds Nd2
09-05-2005, 10:03 PM
Nevermind GAC, I found your sources. All right wing blogs with no direct sources.

Umm, I could be mistaken here but at one time, didn't Clinton try to sound more "conservative" and do alot of talking about states rights? What GAC is saying, and I heard that earlier today, sounds like it would rank up there with that.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative comment. It's just a question. Don't get me wrong RBA, I've disliked the direction this country has taken for along time now, from both sides.

ochre
09-05-2005, 10:03 PM
This is stictly a "paint doesn't know the answer and wants to educate himself" kind of question.

Is the role of FEMA strictly an organizational role for other aid organizations, or are they the ones who are responsible for distrubuting the aid? What is their role in the case of a natural disaster?

John Macy was named as FEMA's first director. Macy emphasized the similarities between natural hazards preparedness and the civil defense activities. FEMA began development of an Integrated Emergency Management System with an all-hazards approach that included "direction, control and warning systems which are common to the full range of emergencies from small isolated events to the ultimate emergency - war."

The new agency was faced with many unusual challenges in its first few years that emphasized how complex emergency management can be. Early disasters and emergencies included the contamination of Love Canal, the Cuban refugee crisis and the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Later, the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992 focused major national attention on FEMA. In 1993, President Clinton nominated James L. Witt as the new FEMA director. Witt became the first agency director with experience as a state emergency manager. He initiated sweeping reforms that streamlined disaster relief and recovery operations, insisted on a new emphasis regarding preparedness and mitigation, and focused agency employees on customer service. The end of the Cold War also allowed Witt to redirect more of FEMA's limited resources from civil defense into disaster relief, recovery and mitigation programs.

In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Joe M. Allbaugh as the director of FEMA. Within months, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th focused the agency on issues of national preparedness and homeland security, and tested the agency in unprecedented ways. The agency coordinated its activities with the newly formed Office of Homeland Security, and FEMA's Office of National Preparedness was given responsibility for helping to ensure that the nation's first responders were trained and equipped to deal with weapons of mass destruction.

Billions of dollars of new funding were directed to FEMA to help communities face the threat of terrorism. Just a few years past its 20th anniversary, FEMA was actively directing its "all-hazards" approach to disasters toward homeland security issues. In March 2003, FEMA joined 22 other federal agencies, programs and offices in becoming the Department of Homeland Security. The new department, headed by Secretary Tom Ridge, brought a coordinated approach to national security from emergencies and disasters - both natural and man-made. Today, FEMA is one of four major branches of DHS. About 2,500 full-time employees in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate are supplemented by more than 5,000 stand-by disaster reservists.

As it has for more than 20 years, FEMA's mission remains: to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters with a vision of "A Nation Prepared." At no time in its history has this vision been more important to the country than in the aftermath of Sept. 11th.


They are supposed to be able to do it all (basically filling in any gaps that exist at the disaster site).

RBA
09-05-2005, 10:06 PM
Seems like FEMA was working well until after the 9/11 attack when the Bush Administration started to give it a lower level in the administation.

GAC
09-05-2005, 10:14 PM
GAC, you know we expect better than that. Can you provide us the link to back up your claim...



Please.

Oh please yourself Rob. What I stated above is factual and can be verified. Do your research on it. The federal government has made these levees the blunt of budget cuts for quite some time (and this adminstration is just as cuplible).

The Clinton Administration held up a major New Orleans levee construction project in 1995, according to a June 23, 1995, article in the Times-Picayune (a LA paper):

A hurricane project, approved and financed since 1965, to protect more than 140,000 West Bank residents east of the Harvey Canal is in jeopardy.

The Clinton administration is holding back a Corps of Engineers report recommending that the $120 million project proceed. Unless that report is forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress cannot authorize money for the project, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office said Thursday.

Without the improvements - a flood gate in the Harvey Canal and raised levees along the Intracoastal Waterway - a tidal surge produced by a hurricane "could result in the catastrophic loss of life and property damage," corps officials reported. In a worst-case-scenario storm, 82 percent of the buildings east of the Harvey Canal, from The Point in Algiers to the Algiers Lock in the Industrial Canal, would be flooded, causing $2.2 billion in damage, according to corps estimates.

Gerald Spohrer, executive director of the West Jefferson Levee District, is seething. "The bureaucracy in Washington has been given a specific instruction and the way they are dealing with it is to do nothing," he said.

If financed by Congress, the project could be started early next year, Spohrer said. Work on the Westwego to Harvey Canal Project hurricane levee, costing $90 million, is 30 percent complete, and plans are about to be drawn for the $20 million Lake Cataouatche Project, which would protect the area west of Westwego....

That project is not the only West Bank flood-control work in jeopardy. Federal budget cuts also may prevent construction of levees outside the main hurricane levee system that would protect the Jean Lafitte-Barataria area. Those levees, to cost $5 million, would not protect the area from severe hurricane surges, but could offer protection against a storm such as Hurricane Juan, which while weak, had heavy rains that caused massive flooding.

EU Rota has more examples of Clinton-era obstructionism here.
(Maybe this explains why Clinton took the high road yesterday and refused to trash Bush on CNN.)

It wasn't only in Louisiana that the Clinton Administration opposed flood control measures. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Clinton vetoed legislation designed to prevent flooding on the Missouri River. According to Michael Catanzaro, the veto stemmed from a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision ordering the Army Corps of Engineers to manipulate the Missouri's water levels to save three endangered species. The veto, a significant campaign issue, was a factor in Bush's narrow win over Al Gore in Missouri.

--------------------------------------------------------

Here's just one link Rob.... http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-left-all-straws-clutched-every.html

An Army Corps of Engineers "hit list" of recommended budget cuts would eliminate new flood-control programs in some of the nation's most flood-prone spots - where recent disasters have left thousands homeless and cost the federal government millions in emergency aid.

Clinton administration officials argue that the flood-control efforts are local projects, not national, and should be paid for by local taxes.

Nationwide, the administration proposes cutting 98 new projects in 35 states and Puerto Rico, for an estimated savings of $29 million in 1996.

Corps officials freely conceded the cuts, which represent only a small portion of savings the corps ultimately must make, may be penny-wise and pound-foolish. But they said they were forced to eliminate some services the corps has historically provided to taxpayers to meet the administration's budget-cutting goals.

June 23, 1995

A hurricane project, approved and financed since 1965, to protect more than 140,000 West Bank residents east of the Harvey Canal is in jeopardy.

The Clinton administration is holding back a Corps of Engineers report recommending that the $120 million project proceed. Unless that report is forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress cannot authorize money for the project, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office said Thursday.

On June 9, John Zirschky, the acting assistant secretary of the Army and the official who refused to forward the report, sent a memo to the corps, saying the recommendation for the project "is not consistent with the policies and budget priorities reflected in the President's Fiscal Year 1996 budget. Accordingly, I will not forward the report to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance."

http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-left-all-straws-clutched-every.html

You want more? I can give you more. But you'll just dismiss them as Repub "talking points". ;)

RBA
09-05-2005, 10:15 PM
Umm, I could be mistaken here but at one time, didn't Clinton try to sound more "conservative" and do alot of talking about states rights? What GAC is saying, and I heard that earlier today, sounds like it would rank up there with that.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative comment. It's just a question. Don't get me wrong RBA, I've disliked the direction this country has taken for along time now, from both sides.

Why do you say, "he tried to sound more conservative"? Clinton leaned right on a variety of things. He was a Governor from Arkansas (not the most liberal state in the union). It sounds like you bought the right wing spin, that Clinton was trying to sound "conservative". That's because he is in many ways. He does have some liberal leanings, but I wouldn't put him up there with Dennis Kucherich or Paul Wellstone.

RBA
09-05-2005, 10:17 PM
Exactly GAC, a blog. What did I tell ya? Thanks for helping out the right wing spin machine.

I found that blog. No sources for their "facts".

Any high school teacher would give that paper a "F". But hey, they are in the liberal teachers union. ;)

GAC
09-05-2005, 10:18 PM
Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somwhere? :lol:

pedro
09-05-2005, 10:22 PM
GAC, don't you understand that some people did not have the means to evacuate or anyplace to go if they did?

It's not easy for people with no cars and no money to evacuate.

You seem to want to place the blame for the sufferring on the those for whom it was most likely completely unavoidable. I think that is unfortunate.

RBA
09-05-2005, 10:23 PM
Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somwhere? :lol:

Why? Because you been caught again passing "right wing" blogs as facts. It's not the first time and I don't expect for you to learn anytime soon.

GAC
09-05-2005, 10:25 PM
Exactly GAC, a blog. What did I tell ya? Thanks for helping out the right wing spin machine.

I found that blog. No sources for their "facts".

The article from a Louisiana paper (the Times-Picayune) from 1995, that quotes Army Corp of Engineer officials and those within the Clinton administration is a right-wing blog?

Get real Rob.

Find it interesting that you seem to have no problem flooding this board with articles all the time that don't provide "sources". ;)

paintmered
09-05-2005, 10:26 PM
They are supposed to be able to do it all (basically filling in any gaps that exist at the disaster site).


Source?

GAC
09-05-2005, 10:28 PM
Why? Because you been caught again passing "right wing" blogs as facts. It's not the first time and I don't expect for you to learn anytime soon.

Really? Please show me evidence of where I have used right-wing blogs on here Rob? I don't even use Fox on here. Never have.

You're starting to rant again, and pull a "Karl Rove" (you know - smear the opposition because you can't refute their claims). :lol:

RBA
09-05-2005, 10:31 PM
The article from a Louisiana paper (the Times-Picayune) from 1995, that quotes Army Corp of Engineer officials and those within the Clinton administration is a right-wing blog?

Get real Rob.

Find it interesting that you seem to have no problem flooding this board with articles all the time that don't provide "sources". ;)

If you say so. But I don't see a link to the paper. I'll move off the ledge now, so you can get your spot back. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll bounce, just like a republican check.

RFS62
09-05-2005, 10:35 PM
http://www.fema.gov/

RBA
09-05-2005, 10:42 PM
Delete

RBA
09-05-2005, 10:53 PM
Dupe. Delete.

ochre
09-05-2005, 11:36 PM
Source?
Yeah, sorry about that. The wife was yelling at me, so I had to take off quick like. That quote was from fema.gov's history of FEMA link. I just grabbed the bottom third that dealt with the actual creation of FEMA and how it currently

Reds Nd2
09-05-2005, 11:40 PM
Why do you say, "he tried to sound more conservative"?

I didn't say that. I was simply asking a question. Did he or did he not, talk about states rights, in an attempt to sound more conservative? And does that lend some credance to what GAC was saying?


Clinton leaned right on a variety of things. He was a Governor from Arkansas (not the most liberal state in the union).

Sounds like he learned the art of double speak well then. It helped him to win two terms in office. Not unlike the one who followed, IMO.


It sounds like you bought the right wing spin, that Clinton was trying to sound "conservative". That's because he is in many ways. He does have some liberal leanings, but I wouldn't put him up there with Dennis Kucherich or Paul Wellstone.

Nope. I'm way long past buying into either sides spin. I was just asking a question.

paintmered
09-05-2005, 11:40 PM
Yeah, sorry about that. The wife was yelling at me, so I had to take off quick like. That quote was from fema.gov's history of FEMA link. I just grabbed the bottom third that dealt with the actual creation of FEMA and how it currently

Thanks. :)

ochre
09-05-2005, 11:43 PM
Thanks. :)
See. I did it again.

Currently operates...

:)

Redsfaithful
09-05-2005, 11:45 PM
Really? Please show me evidence of where I have used right-wing blogs on here Rob? I don't even use Fox on here. Never have.

Are you really so delusional that you don't realize that http://eurota.blogspot.com/ is a right wing blog?

BUTLER REDSFAN
09-06-2005, 12:40 AM
listening to burbank the other day on wlw--he was rather hatefully calling hastert a "pig"--upset about the comment hastert made about not rebuilding new orleans--lets see burbank lets spend billions rebuilding new orleans just to see it get wiped out 2,3 or 10 years down the road again..hastert is called a pig for that?!?!? also i herd i lady on with scott slone today from west chester who's brother couldnt get his wife to leave new orleans because she didnt want to leave her dogs behind???/ absolutely sickening

Reds Nd2
09-06-2005, 12:56 AM
GAC, don't you understand that some people did not have the means to evacuate or anyplace to go if they did?

It's not easy for people with no cars and no money to evacuate.

And some people still refuse to evacuate when help is there. Not all of the people stranded in NOLA were too poor to leave. Some just simply chose not to. It's those same people who are making the recovery and the evacuation difficult now. It's the numbers of people who chose not to leave which makes the process that much more difficult and it's those same numbers of people who are still making it difficult. I'm pointing fingers and I shouldn't.

My appologies pedro, didn't mean to rant. In fact, I deleted the part about evacuating the remaining people when I realized I was starting to point fingers (I should have deleted the entire post). This shouldn't be about assigning blame. The reports of people turning on each other in NOLA, the reports of snipers and people shooting at the helicopters who came to rescue them, that's the thing that saddens me most. The thought that my fellow Americans can't pull together in this time of need, that we can't help each other out when needed without blaming someone, God it just sickens me.

EDITED: added (I should have deleted the entire post) ~Nd2

Rojo
09-06-2005, 01:30 AM
The Clinton Administration held up a major New Orleans levee construction project in 1995, according to a June 23, 1995, article in the Times-Picayune (a LA paper):

A hurricane project, approved and financed since 1965, to protect more than 140,000 West Bank residents east of the Harvey Canal is in jeopardy.

First, this isn't really germane. The righty blogosphere keeps wanting to this about evacuation, looters or everything but the absolutely horrible response to a catastrophe.

Second, the West Bank (Algiers and Gretna), to my knowledge, didn't flood. Someone had to nexis/lexis back 10 years to find some wrangling over hurrican protection in the greater NO-area. Weak.

I'm sure Clinton cut lots of projects -- Congressmen are always trying to lard up on federal dollars. How he or any other President decides these things is beyond me. Maybe Bush has a good reason for drastic cuts to the Lake Ponchetrain project. I don't know. But, again, that isn't really the point.

pedro
09-06-2005, 03:13 AM
Reds Nd2,

you are right about the fact that there are many that could have evacuated but didn't, and that certainly hasn't helped the situation.

The thing that most disappoints me was the inability of the feds to provide air drops of foods and water and ground troops to provide security. I know that evacuating that many people in these types of circumstances is difficult, I just don't think it is beyond our ability to provide the basics in a more timely manner.

Caveat Emperor
09-06-2005, 03:36 AM
listening to burbank the other day on wlw--he was rather hatefully calling hastert a "pig"--upset about the comment hastert made about not rebuilding new orleans--lets see burbank lets spend billions rebuilding new orleans just to see it get wiped out 2,3 or 10 years down the road again..hastert is called a pig for that?!?!?

Florida is routinely decimated by Hurricanes, and we continue to build and insure multimillion dollar beach houses all over the state...

California property is frequently destroyed by all manner of natural disasters -- be it brush fires that burn out of control and consume houses, mudslides that wipe out entire neighborhoods, or the ever present threat of a giant earthquake that could send everywhere from San Francisco to San Diego back to the stone age. We still build tons of stuff in Califronia...

That's a specious argument to make, not even considering that New Orleans is one of the largest ports in North America as well as the central location for almost a quarter of America's energy production and one of the most historical cities in the United States.

But, that's just my opinon, and I'm probably pretty biased on this subject.

GAC
09-06-2005, 09:17 AM
Are you really so delusional that you don't realize that http://eurota.blogspot.com/ is a right wing blog?

And are you just as delusional to not see that the article/source that I posted first was the original article in the Times-Picayune (a regional Louisiana paper)? I posted the other link because it references the very same article that appeared in that regional paper back in 1995 when those local agencies and the Army Corp of Engineers were expressing concern and petitioning the adminsitration not to do it.

And you should be the last person to criticize anyone about posting/referencing blog websites that offer extreme views. That's laughable, knowing what left-wing media outlet you yourself say you work for -and you've even tried to reference it on here. ;)

But I have a great idea if you and RBA would like to get to the truth on this matter. Because I really don't want you guys to take my word for it. Here's the website for the Times-Picayune.... http://www.nola.com/

The article appeared in the regional paper back in 1995 when the cuts were being implemented and the Army Corp of Engineers were expressing concern, as well as those local agencies in LA.

Their website archive does not go back as far as 10 years, which may be due to the fact they weren't on-line at that time (don't know - but probable). You do realize that you can't always have a "link" for everything don't you? I know you guys rely on the internet alot; but it's not always possible if they weren't on-line at that time it occurred. But if you email them and ask for a transcript of that article and give them the year - I bet they could find it for you.

I just want to see if you'll do it or not. And I doubt either of you will. It's so much easier for you to dismiss and throw labels out there instead. And then you have the audacity to say you stand by and want the truth on here.

And besides that RF - if you'd go back and read what I said, you'd see I wasn't attempting to exonerate Bush while trashing Clinton. I was showing that the federal government (this adminstration included) has been making regional projects like these the "victims" of federal budget cuts, and it goes back to when Clinton did it also. And both administration did so against Army Corp of Enigneer proposals. They ignored them due to those needed budget cuts - and it finally may have cost them. That's sad.

GAC
09-06-2005, 09:28 AM
First, this isn't really germane. The righty blogosphere keeps wanting to this about evacuation, looters or everything but the absolutely horrible response to a catastrophe.

Second, the West Bank (Algiers and Gretna), to my knowledge, didn't flood. Someone had to nexis/lexis back 10 years to find some wrangling over hurrican protection in the greater NO-area. Weak.

I'm sure Clinton cut lots of projects -- Congressmen are always trying to lard up on federal dollars. How he or any other President decides these things is beyond me. Maybe Bush has a good reason for drastic cuts to the Lake Ponchetrain project. I don't know. But, again, that isn't really the point.

Go back and read what I said Rojo. Did I not state that the federal government (including this adminstration) has been cutting funding to these projects, dating all the way back to Clinton. My point was not to push it off on Clinton (because Bush did it too); but to show that projects like these are always the "victims" when it comes to federal budget cuts. It was wrong, and over time it finally caught up to us.

And you are right - the West Bank (Algiers and Gretna) did not flood. So why such the uproar by the left over how it's Bush's fault that these levees failed? It's the left who has brought this up to begin with, and has been ranting and raving that Bush caused this catastrophe in NO by cutting that funding. Would you like to see some of the articles that such illustrious media outlets as the Guardian, the BBC, Salon, and former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal are saying right now? Talk about "talking points". It's Pure BS.

And obviously, afte seeing what you just stated above - you wouldn't agree with them either then right?

registerthis
09-06-2005, 10:37 AM
Would you like to see some of the articles that such illustrious media outlets as the BBC are saying right now? I count ten articles about Katrina on the BBC-Americas web page.

Perhaps you could point me to the one with the ridiculous partisan spin?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/default.stm

registerthis
09-06-2005, 10:40 AM
Interesting, too, that the beloved washington Times published an editorial on Friday (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050901-090238-2051r.htm) critical of the slow governmental response to the disaster, saying that Bush was finally "able to catch a ride home from his vacation."

Darn that left-wing liberal media! ;)

westofyou
09-06-2005, 12:42 PM
Mayor says Katrina may have claimed more than 10,000 lives, Bodies found piled in freezer at Convention Center

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html#076771

Arkansas National Guardsman Mikel Brooks stepped through the food service entrance of the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center Monday, flipped on the light at the end of his machine gun, and started pointing out bodies.

"Don't step in that blood - it's contaminated," he said. "That one with his arm sticking up in the air, he's an old man."
Then he shined the light on the smaller human figure under the white sheet next to the elderly man.

"That's a kid," he said. "There's another one in the freezer, a 7-year-old with her throat cut."

He moved on, walking quickly through the darkness, pulling his camouflage shirt to his face to screen out the overwhelming odor.
"There's an old woman," he said, pointing to a wheelchair covered by a sheet. "I escorted her in myself. And that old man got bludgeoned to death," he said of the body lying on the floor next to the wheelchair.

Brooks and several other Guardsmen said they had seen between 30 and 40 more bodies in the Convention Center's freezer. "It's not on, but at least you can shut the door," said fellow Guardsman Phillip Thompson.

The scene of rotting bodies inside the Convention Center reflected those in thousands of businesses, schools, homes and shelters across the metropolitan area. The official death count from Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana was 71 as of Monday evening, but that included only those bodies that had been brought to a make-shift morgue in St. Gabriel.

Reds Nd2
09-06-2005, 02:05 PM
I just don't think it is beyond our ability to provide the basics in a more timely manner.

I agree pedro. It took way too long for help to reach these people. It may be difficult to see now, but there is a bright side to this. Questions will be asked and better ways to respond will be found to ensure this sort of thing never happens again. EDIT: I hope.

ghettochild
09-06-2005, 02:17 PM
From the Department of Homeland Security's website.....Here is the official protocol for emergencies and natural disasters:

Source: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/edit...torial_0569.xml


Emphasis on Local Response

All incidents are handled at the lowest possible organizational and jurisdictional level. Police, fire, public health and medical, emergency management, and other personnel are responsible for incident management at the local level. For those events that rise to the level of an Incident of National Significance, the Department of Homeland Security provides operational and/or resource coordination for Federal support to on-scene incident command structures.

This means: Local > State > Federal (FEMA)

ochre
09-06-2005, 02:54 PM
From the national response plan on DHS's site:

Under provisions of the Stafford Act and applicable
regulations:
■ A Governor may request the President to declare a
major disaster or emergency if the Governor finds
that effective response to the event is beyond the
combined response capabilities of the State and
affected local governments. Based on the findings of
a joint Federal-State-local Preliminary Damage
Assessment (PDA) indicating the damages are of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant assistance
under the act, the President may grant a major disaster
or emergency declaration. (Note: In a particularly
fast-moving or clearly devastating disaster, the PDA
process may be deferred until after the declaration.)
■ If the President determines that an emergency exists
where the primary responsibility for response rests
with the Government of the United States, or
because the emergency involves an area or facility
for which the Federal Government exercises
exclusive or preeminent primary responsibility and
authority, the President may unilaterally direct the
provision of assistance under the act and will, if
practicable, consult with the Governor of the State.
■ DHS can use limited pre-declaration authorities to
move initial response resources (critical goods
typically needed in the immediate aftermath of a
disaster such as food, water, emergency generators,
etc.) closer to a potentially affected area.
■ Federal assistance takes many forms—including the
direct provision of goods and services, financial
assistance (through insurance, grants, loans, and
direct payments), and technical assistance—and
can come from various sources.
■ In a major disaster or emergency as defined in the
Stafford Act, the President “may direct any Federal
agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize
its authorities and the resources granted to it under
Federal law (including personnel, equipment,
supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical, and
advisory services) in support of State and local
assistance efforts…” [sections 402(a)(1) and
502(a)(1) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §
5170a(1) and § 5192(a)(1)].
■ In an actual or potential Incident of National
Significance that is not encompassed by the
Stafford Act, the President may instruct a Federal
department or agency, subject to any statutory
limitations on the department or agency, to utilize
the authorities and resources granted to it by
Congress. In accordance with HSPD-5, Federal
departments and agencies are expected to provide
their full and prompt cooperation, available
resources, and support, as appropriate and
consistent with their own responsibilities for
protecting national security.
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf

Rojo
09-06-2005, 09:49 PM
And you are right - the West Bank (Algiers and Gretna) did not flood. So why such the uproar by the left over how it's Bush's fault that these levees failed?

Sorry, but this makes no sense.

GAC
09-06-2005, 09:50 PM
Interesting, too, that the beloved washington Times published an editorial on Friday (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050901-090238-2051r.htm) critical of the slow governmental response to the disaster, saying that Bush was finally "able to catch a ride home from his vacation."

Darn that left-wing liberal media! ;)


And so has Fox. So much for biases and spin huh?. ;)

I was referring Ben, please go back and read exactly what I posted, to many organizations and individuals on the left blaming Bush for this catastrophe because of his budget cuts to those levee improvements. Have you read what the Guardian has stated? - or former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal? That is what I am referring to. Then we have those who are saying this is an issue of race or hatred of the poor (such as Jesse and Sharpton). Totally absurd IMO.

I don't deny that our federal government, along with FEMA, got set back on their heels, so to speak, over this all And that their response was slow in the immediate aftermath. It was/is tragic and sad.

All I stated is that there is plenty of blame to go around - from the local and state level on up. And to use this as an opprtunity, and make it a political issue to nail Bush is simply absurd IMO. The more I follow this situation, day by day, it has shown me that there are, and have been, lapses in our evry area, such as preparation/readiness to relief.

And we need to fix them. That is what I want to see come out of all of this -that we investigate and address those issues.

But I'll be honest Ben. I really don't think that even that could lessen the effects of a disaster of this proprtions when it hits a huge metropolis. I think any system would still be overwhelmed.


And this was not a ful scale failure

Rojo
09-06-2005, 09:58 PM
I don't deny that our federal government, along with FEMA, got set back on their heels, so to speak, over this all And that their response was slow in the immediate aftermath. It was/is tragic and sad.

"Tragic and sad"? Wow, take that FEMA.

All your trying to do is dredge up a fight you think you can win, to the exclusion of the fight you know you can't. Personally, I'm not really interested.

Rojo
09-06-2005, 10:04 PM
This means: Local > State > Federal (FEMA)

So then can Louisiana demand their guard units back from Iraq?

GAC
09-06-2005, 10:13 PM
Sorry, but this makes no sense.

That many on the left are screaming that Bush should be held accountable for this tragedy in NO because of the budget cuts to that levee system?

How about Blumenthal as just one example with his editorial that appeared in Salon and the Guardian?

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2005%20Opinion%20Editorials/September/3%20o/Bush%20Policies%20to%20Blame%20for%20the%20Scale%2 0of%20Disaster%20By%20Sidney%20Blumenthal.htm

Bush Policies to Blame for the Scale of Disaster

By Sidney Blumenthal

The Guardian, September 2, 2005

Biblical in its uncontrolled rage and scope, the storm has left millions of Americans to scavenge for food and shelter, and hundreds reportedly dead. With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico. But the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.

A year ago the US Army corps of engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, the Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project. Operated by the corps of engineers, levees and pumping stations were strengthened and renovated.

In 2001, when George Bush became president, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely potential disasters — after a terrorist attack on New York City.

But by 2003 the federal funding essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. By 2004, the Bush administration cut the corps of engineers’ request for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. By the beginning of this year, the administration’s additional cuts, reduced by 44 percent since 2001, forced the corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate debated adding funds for fixing levees, but it was too late.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem — whose presses are underwater and can now only put out an online edition — has reported: “No one can say they didn’t see it coming ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation.”

The Bush administration’s policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly has contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands around New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush promised a “no net loss” wetland policy, which had been launched by his father’s administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed the approach in 2003, unleashing the developers.

The army corps of engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce. In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups conducted a study that concluded in 2004 that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary — much less a category four or five — hurricane. “There’s no way to describe how mindless a policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection,” said one of the report’s authors.

The chairman of the White House’s council on environmental quality dismissed the study as “highly questionable,” and boasted: “Everybody loves what we’re doing.” “My administration’s climate change policy will be science-based,” President Bush declared.

But in 2002, when the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a study on global warming to the UN, reflecting its expert research, Bush derided it as “a report put out by a bureaucracy,” and excised the climate change assessment from its annual report. The next year, when the EPA issued its first comprehensive Report on the Environment, stating: “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment,” the White House simply removed the line and all such conclusions.

At the G-8 meeting in Gleneagles this year, Bush stymied any common action on global warming. But scientists have continued to accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, producing more severe hurricanes.

In February 2004, 60 scientists warned in a statement, Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: “Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the US the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy ... Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle ... The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease.”

Bush ignored the statement.

In the two weeks preceding the storm, the trumping of science by ideology and expertise by special interests accelerated. The Federal Drug Administration announced it was postponing sale of the morning-after pill, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its safety and approval by the FDA’s scientific advisory board. The UN special envoy for HIV Aids in Africa accused the Bush administration of responsibility for a condom shortage in Uganda as a result of pushing its evangelical Christian agenda of “abstinence.”

The chief of the board of justice statistics in the Justice Department was ordered by the White House to delete its study that African-Americans and minorities are subject to racial profiling in police traffic stops. He refused to concede and was forced to quit. When the army’s chief contracting oversight analyst objected to a $7-billion no-bid contract awarded for work in Iraq to Halliburton, she was demoted despite her superior professional ratings.

On the day the levee burst in New Orleans, Bush delivered a speech comparing the Iraq war to World War II and himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt: “And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to the region was by bringing freedom to Japan.” Bush had boarded his very own Streetcar Named Desire.

— Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is author of The Clinton Wars.

Now Hillary, Wesley Clark, are out there saying the same things.

And I agree with what you stated earlier Rojo - There wasn't a catastrophic breech of the entire levee system. If the entire levee system had broke down it would have been far worse then we have currently seen. And I'm not in any way trying to lessen what has already occurred; but simply saying it could have been alot worse.

Even the Army Corp of Engineers concurs that even with improvements to the levee system, there are still huge doubts that it would hold up under a category 5 hurricane.

GAC
09-06-2005, 10:29 PM
"Tragic and sad"? Wow, take that FEMA.

All your trying to do is dredge up a fight you think you can win, to the exclusion of the fight you know you can't. Personally, I'm not really interested.

Then quit responding. ;)

But dredge up a fight? Hardly. Who started this thread? - and what was the title again? And it's not about winning. It's about addressing people who, IMO, are come out trying to make this a partisan political issue by laying this solely at Bush's feet, when there is plenty of blame to be laid, starting at the local levels, and on up to the federal.

What was NO and Louisiana's response/preparation planning in the event of just such a catastrophe? It's not like this scenario all of a sudden presented itself?

NO - situated in the heart of a hurricane zone - geographically vulnerable - relying on a levee system that at best could only sustain a category 3 hurricane.

I'm upset that there are those out there on the left who asying this was all about race (Jesse, Moore, Sharpton, for example) - or are implying that it was an issue of not caring for the poor, which was the reasoning for the slow response. Pure BS.

If you want to discuss legitimate concerns as to the reasoning as to why the fedreal goverment, and appropriate agencies, were slow to respond, then I am all ears and willing to debate it.

Just get the hateful partisan political politics out of it. ;)

This is not about bashing Bush; but looking at the problems incurred, and addressing them for the future.

GAC
09-06-2005, 10:31 PM
So then can Louisiana demand their guard units back from Iraq?

See. This is what I am talking about. Partisan smacks. This really adds to the discussion. And you say you don't want to dredge up a fight? Such contradictions. :rolleyes:

GAC
09-06-2005, 10:36 PM
RBA and RF...

here is another article that references that Times-Picayune article from 1995 and the Clinton budget cuts. Are you gonna say dismiss that as an extremist right-wing blog too? Which by the way - references FactCheck.org. ;)

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/05/431c79cc221f2

Levee "Breach" Was Not Forecast - But Flooding Scenario Was Predicted

click for a printable version email article to a friend
from FactCheck.org
September 05, 2005

Is President Bush to blame for New Orleans flooding?

Like most of America, Nebraska has been involved in relief efforts for victims of Hurricane Katrina. There is much interest in news surrounding the tragedy. With that in mind, StatePaper.com offers this report from FactCheck.org.

Republicans and Democrats have regularly cited FactCheck.org as accurate, including during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Here is what the organization reported:

Bush did slash funding for levee projects. But the Army Corps of Engineers says Katrina was just too strong.


President Bush.
Summary

Some critics are suggesting President Bush was as least partly responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. In a widely quoted opinion piece, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal says that "the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature," and cites years of reduced funding for federal flood-control projects around New Orleans.

Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local officials had been complaining about that for years.

It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects would have made any difference, however, and we're not in a position to judge that. The Army Corps of Engineers – which is under the President's command and has its own reputation to defend – insists that Katrina was just too strong, and that even if the levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane.

Analysis

We suspect this subject will get much more attention in Congress and elsewhere in the coming months. Without blaming or absolving Bush, here are the key facts we've been able to establish so far:


President Bush.
Bush Cut Funding

Blumenthal's much-quoted article in salon.com carried the headline: "No one can say they didn't see it coming." And it said the Bush administration cut flood-control funding "to pay for the Iraq war."

He continues:

Blumenthal: With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico . But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.

…By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year…forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.

We can confirm that funding was cut. The project most closely associated with preventing flooding in New Orleans was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Hurricane Protection Project, which was “designed to protect residents between Lake Pontchartrain and the Missisippi River levee from surges in Lake Pontchartrain,” according to a fact sheet from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (The fact sheet is dated May 23, long before Katrina). The multi-decade project involved building new levees, enlarging existing levees, and updating other protections like floodwalls. It was scheduled to be completed in 2015.

Over at least the past several budget cycles, the Corps has received substantially less money than it requested for the Lake Pontchartrain project, even though Congress restored much of the money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested.

In fiscal year 2004, the Corps requested $11 million for the project. The President’s budget allocated $3 million, and Congress furnished $5.5 million. Similarly, in fiscal 2005 the Corps requested $22.5 million, which the President cut to $3.9 million in his budget. Congress increased that to $5.5 million. “This was insufficient to fund new construction contracts,” according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project fact sheet. The Corps reported that “seven new contracts are being delayed due to lack funds” [sic].

The President proposed $3 million for the project in the budget for fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. 1. “This will be insufficient to fund new construction projects,” the fact sheet stated. It says the Corps “could spend $20 million if funds were provided.” The Corps of Engineers goes on to say:

Army Corps of Engineers, May 23: In Orleans Parish, two major pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from addressing these pressing needs.

The Corps has seen cutbacks beyond those affecting just the Lake Pontchartrain project. The Corps oversees SELA, or the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control project, which Congress authorized after six people died from flooding in May 1995. The Times-Picayune newspaper of New Orleans reported that, overall, the Corps had spent $430 million on flood control and hurricane prevention, with local governments offering more than $50 million toward the project. Nonetheless, "at least $250 million in crucial projects remained," the newspaper said.

In the past five years, the amount of money spent on all Corps construction projects in the New Orleans district has declined by 44 percent, according to the New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper, from $147 million in 2001 to $82 million in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

A long history of complaints

Local officials had long complained that funding for hurricane protection projects was inadequate:

October 13, 2001: The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that “federal officials are postponing new projects of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Program, or SELA, fearing that federal budget constraints and the cost of the war on terrorism may create a financial pinch for the program.” The paper went on to report that “President Bush’s budget proposed $52 million” for SELA in the 2002 fiscal year. The House approved $57 million and the Senate approved $62 million. Still, “the $62 million would be well below the $80 million that corps officials estimate is needed to pay for the next 12 months of construction, as well as design expenses for future projects.”

April 24, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that “less money is available to the Army Corps of Engineers to build levees and water projects in the Missisippi River valley this year and next year.” Meanwhile, an engineer who had direct the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study – a study of how to restore coastal wetlands areas in order to provide a bugger from hurricane storm surges – was sent to Iraq "to oversee the restoration of the ‘Garden of Eden’ wetlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers,” for which President Bush’s 2005 gave $100 million.

June 8, 2004: Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the Times-Picayune:

Walter Maestri: It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq , and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

September 22, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that a pilot study on raising the height of the levees surrounding New Orleans had been completed and generated enough information for a second study necessary to estimate the cost of doing so. The Bush administration “ordered the New Orleans district office” of the Army Corps of Engineers “not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money.”

June 6, 2005: The New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper reported that the New Orleans district of the Corps was preparing for a $71.2 million reduction in overall funding for the fiscal year beginning in October. That would have been the largest single-year funding loss ever. They noted that money “was so tight" that "the New Orleans district, which employs 1,300 people, instituted a hiring freeze last month on all positions,” which was “the first of its kind in about 10 years.”

Would Increased Funding Have Prevented Flooding?

Blumenthal implies that increased funding might have helped to prevent the catastrophic flooding that New Orleans now faces. The White House denies that, and the Corps of Engineers says that even the levee project they were working to complete was not designed to withstand a storm of Katrina's force.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, at a press briefing on September 1, dismissed the idea that the President inadequately funded flood control projects in New Orleans :

McClellan: Flood control has been a priority of this administration from day one. We have dedicated an additional $300 million over the last few years for flood control in New Orleans and the surrounding area. And if you look at the overall funding levels for the Army Corps of Engineers, they have been slightly above $4.5 billion that has been signed by the President.

Q: Local people were asking for more money over the last couple of years. They were quoted in local papers in 2003 and 2004, are saying that they were told by federal officials there wasn't enough money because it was going to Iraq expenditures.

McClellan: You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's talked to some reporters already and talked about some of these issues. I think some people maybe have tried to make a suggestion or imply that certain funding would have prevented the flooding from happening, and he has essentially said there's been nothing to suggest that whatsoever, and it's been more of a design issue with the levees.

We asked the Corps about that “design issue.” David Hewitt, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said McClellan was referring to the fact that “the levees were designed for a category 3 hurricane.” He told us that, consequently, “when it became apparent that this was a category 5 hurricane, an evacuation of the city was ordered.” (A category 3 storm has sustained winds of no more than 130 miles per hour, while a category 5 storm has winds exceeding 155 miles per hour. Katrina had winds of 160 mph as it approached shore, but later weakened to winds of 140 mph as it made landfall, making it a strong category 4 storm, according to the National Hurricane Center.)

The levee upgrade project around Lake Pontchartrain was only 60 to 90 percent complete across most areas of New Orleans as of the end of May, according to the Corps' May 23 fact sheet. Still, even if it had been completed, the project's goal was protecting New Orleans from storm surges up to "a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane,” according to the fact sheet.

We don't know whether the levees would have done better had the work been completed. But the Corps says that even a completed levee project wasn't designed for the storm that actually occurred.

Nobody anticipated breach of the levees? Flooding was predicted

In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on September 1, President Bush said:

Bush: I don’t think anyone anticipated breach of the levees …Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.

Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.

Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:

Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think they would actually be breached.

And while Bush is also technically correct that the Corps did not "anticipate" a breach – in the sense that they believed it was a likely event – at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a possibility worth examining.

According to the Times-Picayune, early in Bush's first term FEMA director Joe Allbaugh ordered a sophisticated computer simulation of what would happen if a category 5 storm hit New Orleans. Joseph Suhayda, an engineer at Louisiana State University who worked on the project, described to the newspaper in 2002 what the simulation showed could happen:

Subhayda: Another scenario is that some part of the levee would fail. It's not something that's expected. But erosion occurs, and as levees broke, the break will get wider and wider. The water will flow through the city and stop only when it reaches the next higher thing. The most continuous barrier is the south levee, along the river. That's 25 feet high, so you'll see the water pile up on the river levee.

Whether or not a "breach" was "anticipated," the fact is that many individuals have been warning for decades about the threat of flooding that a hurricane could pose to a set below sea level and sandwiched between major waterways. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report from before September 11, 2001 detailed the three most likely catastrophic disasters that could happen in the United States: a terrorist attack in New York, a strong earthquake in San Francisco, and a hurricane strike in New Orleans. In 2002, New Orleans officials held the simulation of what would happen in a category 5 storm. Walter Maestri, the emergency coordinator of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans , recounted the outcome to PBS’ NOW With Bill Moyers:

Maestri, September 2002: Well, when the exercise was completed it was evidence that we were going to lose a lot of people. We changed the name of the [simulated] storm from Delaney to K-Y-A-G-B... kiss your ass goodbye... because anybody who was here as that category five storm came across... was gone.

--by Matthew Barge

Sources

Sidney Blumenthal, “No one can say they didn’t see it coming ,” salon.com, 31 August 2005

Deon Roberts, “Bush budget not expected to diminish New Orleans district’s $65 million,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 07 February 2005

Manuel Torres, “Flood work to slow down; Corps delays new projects,” Times-Picayune, 13 October 2001

Mark Schlefistein, “Corps sees its resources siphoned off; Wetlands restoration officials sent to Iraq ,” Times-Picayune, 24 April 2004

“Mark Schleifstein, “Ivan stirs up wave of safety proposals; Hurricane-proofed stadium is one idea,” Times-Picayune, 22 September 2004

Deon Roberts, “Bush budget not expected to diminish New Orleans district’s $65 million ,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 07 February 2005

Mark Schleifstein, “Bush budget cuts levee, drainage funds; Backlog of contracts waits to be awarded,” Times-Picayune, 08 February 2005

“Bush budget fails to fund flood control in New Orleans ,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 14 February 2005

Deon Roberts, “ New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces ,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 06 June 2005

Will Bunch, “Did New Orleans catastrophe have to happen? ‘Times-Picayune’ had repeatedly raised federal spending issues,” Editor & Publisher, 31 August 2005

Toby Eckert, “Could disaster have been prevented?,” Copley News Service, 02 September 2005

Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker, “ Critics say Bush undercut New Orleans flood control ,” Washington Post, 02 September 2005

“The City in a Bowl ,” Transcript, NOW, Public Broadcasting Service, 20 September 2002

Jon Elliston, “ A Disaster Waiting to Happen ,” bestofneworleans.com, 28 September 2004

Scott Shane and Eric Lipton, “ Government saw flood risk but not levee failure ,” New York Times, 02 September 2005

Paul Krugman, “ A can’t-do government ,” New York Times, 02 September 2005

“Lake Pontchartrain, LA and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Charles Parishes, LA ,” Project Fact Sheet, US Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District, website, 23 May 2005

“Fiscal Year 2006: Civil Works Budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ,” Department of the Army, February 2005

“Press Briefing by Scott McClellan ,” whitehouse.gov, 01 September 2005

Karen Turni, “Upgrade of levees proposed by corps; gulf outlet levee may be too low, officials worry,” Times-Picayune, 12 November 1998

John McQuaid and Mark Schleifstein, “The big one: A major hurricane could decimate the region, but flooding from even a moderate storm could kill thousands. It’s just a matter of time,” Times-Picayune, 24 June 2002

RBA
09-06-2005, 10:39 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/dhs/images/themeTitle_EmergenciesDisasters.gif

Preparing America

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS.

Additional Resources


The National Response Plan (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml) establishes a comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents.



http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home2.jsp

Rojo
09-06-2005, 11:16 PM
See. This is what I am talking about. Partisan smacks. This really adds to the discussion. And you say you don't want to dredge up a fight? Such contradictions. :rolleyes:

Nothing parisan about it. If the Ghettochild thinks the states should take care of themselve, then the Feds should stop taking their Guardsmen. Seems fair to me.

Rojo
09-06-2005, 11:20 PM
If you want to discuss legitimate concerns as to the reasoning as to why the fedreal goverment, and appropriate agencies, were slow to respond, then I am all ears and willing to debate it.

Because this administration is incompetent. Sheesh, haven't you been listening?

WVRed
09-06-2005, 11:40 PM
Because this administration is incompetent. Sheesh, haven't you been listening?

For the last going on five years, thats all we have heard. I guess we can bear listening to it for another three.;)

Rojo
09-07-2005, 12:53 AM
I guess we can bear listening to it for another three.;)

At the most. :)

GAC
09-07-2005, 09:01 AM
Nothing parisan about it. If the Ghettochild thinks the states should take care of themselve, then the Feds should stop taking their Guardsmen. Seems fair to me.

They still have Guardsman. You, and others, are trying to make it sound like they emptied LA of all it's NG units - and it just is not so. And why was Blanco so slow to deploy them? And what's also interesting is that when the Feds petitioned her to place LA Guardsman temporarily under federal control in order to better coordinate logistics in the relief effort after the hurricane, she would not allow it. And she won't give any reasoning as to why either.

ochre
09-07-2005, 11:07 AM
You obviously have no understanding of how the National Guard works. If the Federal Government wants control they get it. All they had to do was put them on federal orders (title X) and they would have had full control. Of course at that point they would have had to be the ones paying them too.

Why would the locals want the Feds (you know, the ones turning back water, fuel and other aid from the city) to have control of their National Guard troops?

RBA
09-07-2005, 11:12 AM
September 7, 2005
Navy Pilots Who Rescued Victims Are Reprimanded

By DAVID S. CLOUD
PENSACOLA, Fla., Sept. 6 - Two Navy helicopter pilots and their crews returned from New Orleans on Aug. 30 expecting to be greeted as lifesavers after ferrying more than 100 hurricane victims to safety.

Instead, their superiors chided the pilots, Lt. David Shand and Lt. Matt Udkow, at a meeting the next morning for rescuing civilians when their assignment that day had been to deliver food and water to military installations along the Gulf Coast.

"I felt it was a great day because we resupplied the people we needed to and we rescued people, too," Lieutenant Udkow said. But the air operations commander at Pensacola Naval Air Station "reminded us that the logistical mission needed to be our area of focus."

The episode illustrates how the rescue effort in the days immediately after Hurricane Katrina had to compete with the military's other, more mundane logistical needs.

Only in recent days, after the federal response to the disaster has come to be seen as inadequate, have large numbers of troops and dozens of helicopters, trucks and other equipment been poured into to the effort. Early on, the military rescue operations were smaller, often depending on the initiative of individuals like Lieutenants Shand and Udkow.

The two lieutenants were each piloting a Navy H-3 helicopter - a type often used in rescue operations as well as transport and other missions - on that Tuesday afternoon, delivering emergency food, water and other supplies to Stennis Space Center, a federal facility near the Mississippi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/mississippi/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) coast. The storm had cut off electricity and water to the center, and the two helicopters were supposed to drop their loads and return to Pensacola, their home base, said Cmdr. Michael Holdener, Pensacola's air operations chief.

"Their orders were to go and deliver water and parts and to come back," Commander Holdener said.

But as the two helicopters were heading back home, the crews picked up a radio transmission from the Coast Guard saying helicopters were needed near the University of New Orleans to help with rescue efforts, the two pilots said.

Out of range for direct radio communication with Pensacola, more than 100 miles to the east, the pilots said, they decided to respond and turned their helicopters around, diverting from their mission without getting permission from their home base. Within minutes, they were over New Orleans.

"We're not technically a search-and-rescue unit, but we're trained to do search and rescue," said Lieutenant Shand, a 17-year Navy veteran.

Flying over Biloxi and Gulfport and other areas of Mississippi, they could see rescue personnel on the ground, Lieutenant Udkow said, but he noticed that there were few rescue units around the flooded city of New Orleans, on the ground or in the air. "It was shocking," he said.

Seeing people on the roofs of houses waving to him, Lieutenant Udkow headed in their direction. Hovering over power lines, his crew dropped a basket to pick up two residents at a time. He took them to Lakefront Airport, where local emergency medical teams had established a makeshift medical center.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant Shand landed his helicopter on the roof of an apartment building, where more than a dozen people were marooned. Women and children were loaded first aboard the helicopter and ferried to the airport, he said.

Returning to pick up the rest, the crew learned that two blind residents had not been able to climb up through the attic to the roof and were still in the building. Two crew members entered the darkened building to find the men, and led them to the roof and into the helicopter, Lieutenant Shand said.

Recalling the rescues in an interview, he became so emotional that he had to stop and compose himself. At one point, he said, he executed a tricky landing at a highway overpass, where more than 35 people were marooned.

Lieutenant Udkow said that he saw few other rescue helicopters in New Orleans that day. The toughest part, he said, was seeing so many people imploring him to pick them up and having to leave some.

"I would be looking at a family of two on one roof and maybe a family of six on another roof, and I would have to make a decision who to rescue," he said. "It wasn't easy."

While refueling at a Coast Guard landing pad in early evening, Lieutenant Udkow said, he called Pensacola and received permission to continue rescues that evening. According to the pilots and other military officials, they rescued 110 people.

The next morning, though, the two crews were called to a meeting with Commander Holdener, who said he told them that while helping civilians was laudable, the lengthy rescue effort was an unacceptable diversion from their main mission of delivering supplies. With only two helicopters available at Pensacola to deliver supplies, the base did not have enough to allow pilots to go on prolonged search and rescue operations.

"We all want to be the guys who rescue people," Commander Holdener said. "But they were told we have other missions we have to do right now and that is not the priority."

The order to halt civilian relief efforts angered some helicopter crews. Lieutenant Udkow, who associates say was especially vocal about voicing his disagreement to superiors, was taken out of the squadron's flying rotation temporarily and assigned to oversee a temporary kennel established at Pensacola to hold pets of service members evacuated from the hurricane-damaged areas, two members of the unit said. Lieutenant Udkow denied that he had complained and said he did not view the kennel assignment as punishment.

Dozens of military aircraft are now conducting search and rescue missions over the affected areas. But privately some members of the Pensacola unit say the base's two available transport helicopters should have been allowed to do more to help civilian victims in the days after the storm hit, when large numbers of military helicopters had not reached the affected areas.

In protest, some members of the unit have stopped wearing a search and rescue patch on their sleeves that reads, "So Others May Live."

RBA
09-07-2005, 11:21 AM
U.S. agency blocks photos of New Orleans dead
Tue Sep 6, 2005 8:56 PM ET





NEW ORLEANS, Sept 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. government agency leading the rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina said on Tuesday it does not want the news media to take photographs of the dead as they are recovered from the flooded New Orleans area.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, heavily criticized for its slow response to the devastation caused by the hurricane, rejected requests from journalists to accompany rescue boats as they went out to search for storm victims.

An agency spokeswoman said space was needed on the rescue boats and that "the recovery of the victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect."

"We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media," the spokeswoman said in an e-mailed response to a Reuters inquiry.

The Bush administration also has prevented the news media from photographing flag-draped caskets of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, which has sparked criticism that the government is trying to block images that put the war in a bad light.

The White House is under fire for its handling of the relief effort, which many officials have charged was slow and bureacratic, contributing to the death and mayhem in New Orleans after the storm struck on Aug. 29. (Additional reporting by Deborah Charles)
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-09-07T005629Z_01_N06101601_RTRIDST_0_KATRINA-PHOTOGRAPHS.XML

savafan
09-07-2005, 12:16 PM
U.S. agency blocks photos of New Orleans dead
Tue Sep 6, 2005 8:56 PM ET





NEW ORLEANS, Sept 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. government agency leading the rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina said on Tuesday it does not want the news media to take photographs of the dead as they are recovered from the flooded New Orleans area.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, heavily criticized for its slow response to the devastation caused by the hurricane, rejected requests from journalists to accompany rescue boats as they went out to search for storm victims.

An agency spokeswoman said space was needed on the rescue boats and that "the recovery of the victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect."

"We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media," the spokeswoman said in an e-mailed response to a Reuters inquiry.

The Bush administration also has prevented the news media from photographing flag-draped caskets of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, which has sparked criticism that the government is trying to block images that put the war in a bad light.

The White House is under fire for its handling of the relief effort, which many officials have charged was slow and bureacratic, contributing to the death and mayhem in New Orleans after the storm struck on Aug. 29. (Additional reporting by Deborah Charles)
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-09-07T005629Z_01_N06101601_RTRIDST_0_KATRINA-PHOTOGRAPHS.XML

If we can minimize (i.e. hide) the evidence of this tragedy and the response that followed, we can minimize the effect it will have on future generations. Isn't that what happened with the Holocaust also?

westofyou
09-07-2005, 12:19 PM
Isn't that what happened with the Holocaust also?

If you've ever seen the film night and fog then you'd never forget that.

As for the photos, you're right it minimizes the pain and that minimizes the connection that one will have with the tradgedy and the party in power.

ochre
09-07-2005, 12:41 PM
If you've ever seen the film night and fog then you'd never foget that.

As for the photos, you're right it minimizes the pain and that minimizes the connection that one will have with the tradgedy and the party in power.
Odd that this wasn't an issue for the voluminous photographic representation of the suffering of the citizens of New York after/during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

westofyou
09-07-2005, 12:43 PM
I just heard on local radi here a interview with a NOLA PBS/Independant station and they said that a prison in the area had a large amount of deaths, it seems the bottom floor housed the guys in the drunk tank/parole violaters etc most of the light sentenced guys.

Anyway according to the radio station most of them drowned.

I then found this in a "Scottish Newspaper"


Craig Vanderwagen, of the public health service, said one morgue alone, at a St Gabriel prison, expected 1,000 to 2,000 bodies.

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1890082005

Falls City Beer
09-07-2005, 01:23 PM
If your bones aren't chilled by this cover up, then you don't understand the American way. I hate to sound like a Republican, but you're not an American if this doesn't disturb you.

traderumor
09-07-2005, 01:29 PM
I'll be interested to see how many of the "reports" check out and don't turn out to be unsubstantiated rumors that are quickly becoming urban legends. The intelligencia sure can be a gullible lot at times.

ochre
09-07-2005, 01:31 PM
I'll be interested to see how many of the "reports" check out and don't turn out to be unsubstantiated rumors that are quickly becoming urban legends. The intelligencia sure can be a gullible lot at times.
but they quite often spell intelligentsia correctly...

traderumor
09-07-2005, 01:44 PM
but they quite often spell intelligentsia correctly...I prefer the spelling of other languages for effect :)

RBA
09-07-2005, 01:54 PM
The prison would seem to be a local and state issue.

Rojo
09-07-2005, 02:01 PM
but they quite often spell intelligentsia correctly...

You've just condemned yourself to double-checking your spelling henceforth. :)

Rojo
09-07-2005, 02:07 PM
They still have Guardsman. You, and others, are trying to make it sound like they emptied LA of all it's NG units - and it just is not so. And why was Blanco so slow to deploy them? And what's also interesting is that when the Feds petitioned her to place LA Guardsman temporarily under federal control in order to better coordinate logistics in the relief effort after the hurricane, she would not allow it. And she won't give any reasoning as to why either.

They've got no problem deploying them half a world away but can't be bothered for an American city?

ochre
09-07-2005, 02:11 PM
You've just condemned yourself to double-checking your spelling henceforth. :)
I usually do (the "right click - search for definition of highlighted word" add-on feature to firefox is a life saver:)). I just found that one kind of sardonically funny :).

ochre
09-07-2005, 02:13 PM
The prison would seem to be a local and state issue.
I agree. Its not like anybody that was directly involved in this disaster from the early stages on is clear of culpability. Plenty of people screwed up. Its just that some people/agencies have to be held to a higher standard.

Rojo
09-07-2005, 02:15 PM
Mmmmm, cake.

Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054719)


Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

By E&P Staff

Published: September 05, 2005 7:25 PM ET updated 8:00 PM

NEW YORK Accompanying her husband, former President George
H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in
Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the
poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."

The former First Lady's remarks were aired this
evening on American Public Media's "Marketplace"
program.

She was part of a group in Houston today at the
Astrodome that included her husband and former
President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son,
the current president, to head fundraising efforts for
the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack
Obama were also present.

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of
evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost
everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to
Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing which is sort of
scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is
so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you
know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

traderumor
09-07-2005, 02:19 PM
I usually do (the "right click - search for definition of highlighted word" add-on feature to firefox is a life saver:)). I just found that one kind of sardonically funny :).But it is a valid spelling, just not in English :p:

savafan
09-07-2005, 02:24 PM
Mmmmm, cake.

Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054719)


Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

By E&P Staff

Published: September 05, 2005 7:25 PM ET updated 8:00 PM

NEW YORK Accompanying her husband, former President George
H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in
Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the
poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."

The former First Lady's remarks were aired this
evening on American Public Media's "Marketplace"
program.

She was part of a group in Houston today at the
Astrodome that included her husband and former
President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son,
the current president, to head fundraising efforts for
the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack
Obama were also present.

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of
evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost
everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to
Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing which is sort of
scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is
so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you
know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

:eek: I don't even know what to say about this. I'm simply baffled that she would say that they are benefitting by this tragedy to get to move to Texas. And a contingent of George H.W. Bush, Barbara Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama...That's like the Odd Squad or something.

ochre
09-07-2005, 02:28 PM
But it is a valid spelling, just not in English :p:
Cool. I'll start blending German and Arabic (transliterated anyway) cognates into my posts for fun :).

I'm reading "the Power of Babel" a linguistics 'history' book of sorts. I was somewhat surprised to find out that 99% of the words in the Oxford dictionary have roots in languages other than English. This is a fairly unique (to English) phenomenon. Seventy five percent of the words actively used in the average spoken, or written English passage, however are english root words. I knew that English was something of a 'bastard' language, but the 99% number surprised me.

Rojo
09-07-2005, 02:31 PM
How about this nugget:


Then she added: "What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want to stay in Texas.

Don't worry Babs, I'm sure they can't afford your neighborhood.

traderumor
09-07-2005, 02:41 PM
Mmmmm, cake.

Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054719)


Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

By E&P Staff

Published: September 05, 2005 7:25 PM ET updated 8:00 PM

NEW YORK Accompanying her husband, former President George
H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in
Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the
poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."

The former First Lady's remarks were aired this
evening on American Public Media's "Marketplace"
program.

She was part of a group in Houston today at the
Astrodome that included her husband and former
President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son,
the current president, to head fundraising efforts for
the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack
Obama were also present.

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of
evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost
everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to
Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing which is sort of
scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is
so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you
know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

So, why is Barbara Bush evil for what she said, yet the audio includes a clip from Clinton where the narrator says, "President Bill Clinton heard the same sentiments from many of those he spoke to today."

Clinton: "A lot of people want to go home to New Orleans. A lot of people want to stay here in Houston and live somewhere else. But, you know, they're beginning to think about the rest of their lives now, so I feel pretty good about what I saw today, even with all the anger and all the terrible stories, there's a sense of...hope."

Somehow, that has gotten left out of the E&P story. I wonder why that is?

We've been dissecting this over on the other board, and now after finally listening to the audio, this is a very sorry attempt to make something slanderous that clearly is not. The story parenthetically mentioning "she chuckled" is just what I suspected, a barely audible sound with no malicious or arrogant intent in it.

Come on, folks, there is plenty of problems to go around for your complaining pleasure, this one is ridiculously inadequate in the search for damning evidence.

savafan
09-07-2005, 02:45 PM
I see what you are saying traderumor, but simply from reading that, there seems to be a different tone to what former President Clinton is saying and what former First Lady Bush said.

traderumor
09-07-2005, 02:53 PM
I see what you are saying traderumor, but simply from reading that, there seems to be a different tone to what former President Clinton is saying and what former First Lady Bush said.But what Clinton said doesn't even appear in the article, which is now obvious why. It wouldn't allow E&P to paint it the way they wanted to. That's Slanted Journalism 101, which I think is probably a for credit course at the local community college these days.

Did you listen to the audio? If not, here's a link http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/marketplace/2005/09/05_mpp?start=00:00:01:00.0&end=00:00:04:36.0
Make up your own mind what the intent was, not what this slanted article is painting.

Rojo
09-07-2005, 03:01 PM
Clinton: "A lot of people want to go home to New Orleans. A lot of people want to stay here in Houston and live somewhere else. But, you know, they're beginning to think about the rest of their lives now, so I feel pretty good about what I saw today, even with all the anger and all the terrible stories, there's a sense of...hope."

Do you really not see a difference?

ochre
09-07-2005, 03:01 PM
Clinton's quote does not attach an undesirable class status to the victims of the disaster as a qualifier to how "satisfied" they should be.

traderumor
09-07-2005, 03:11 PM
So the spin is on the other foot now :evil:

traderumor
09-07-2005, 03:13 PM
Do you really not see a difference?The only reason you do is because your mind is already made up.

dsmith421
09-07-2005, 03:17 PM
So the spin is on the other foot now :evil:

Barbara Bush has a habit of saying absolutely horrible and insulting things about less fortunate people. See her "beautiful mind" quote about not wanting to hear about casualties in Iraq.

Despite all his faults, Bill Clinton has always possessed incredible empathy for those less fortunate. His immense popularity in the black community is well-documented. Clinton also grew up dirt poor.

So yeah, there is a difference between the two statements, and it's not partisan spin. One statement evokes empathy and hope, the other elitism and hate.

RedsBaron
09-07-2005, 03:39 PM
I think Barbara Bush should resign.

GAC
09-07-2005, 03:56 PM
You obviously have no understanding of how the National Guard works. If the Federal Government wants control they get it. All they had to do was put them on federal orders (title X) and they would have had full control. Of course at that point they would have had to be the ones paying them too.

Maybe it's not me that doesn't understand? Just going by what I read ochre. ;)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/shared/news/nation/stories/09/06KATRINA_BUSH.html

Bush returns to Gulf coast, repeating pledges of assistance
By KEN HERMAN
Cox News Service
Tuesday, September 06, 2005

BATON ROUGE, La. — President Bush returned Monday to the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, spreading a message of hope and walking a Mississippi street where the downed trees and damaged carports seemed minor compared to the devastation in New Orleans.

The president, traveling with wife Laura, spoke to emergency management and rescue officials in Louisiana and Mississippi, and started his day at a shelter set up at a Baton Rouge church.
George Clark/AP Photo/Hattiesburg American
(enlarge photo)
President Bush meets with Frank Gennin and his wife, Alice, Monday, in Poplarville, Miss., as he toured a neighborhood damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

For Bush, it was a chance to highlight the "armies of compassion" from community and faith-based organizations involved in helping those who survived the storm.

"The response of this country has been amazing," Bush said after he met with evacuees taken in by the Bethany World Prayer Center shelter set up in the church's recreation hall.

At least 100 mattresses were on the floor of the room. Children played and babies cried as Bush worked the room, consoling people, offering hugs and kisses, and signing autographs on shirts and hats. Laura Bush also talked with people in the shelter, as did Democratic Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

A polite coolness seemed to exist between Bush and Blanco, who had refused to cede control of her state's National Guard units to the federal government. A vocal critic of federal relief efforts, she has also hired a Clinton administration official, former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief James Lee Witt, to help run the emergency response in Louisiana.

Although Bush's trip to Baton Rouge was no secret, Blanco's office learned of the visit from reporters. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House tried to contact Blanco on Sunday to invite her to the Monday events, but was unable to reach her until "seven o'clockish" Monday morning.

Blanco gave Bush a terse introduction at the Baton Rouge emergency operations center. Bush praised Blanco for doing "your duty" in the hurricane's aftermath. After his remarks, Bush gave Blanco a kiss on the cheek.

At the Baton Rouge shelter, Bush and Blanco kept their distance as they talked with evacuees.

Meanwhile in Houston, the president's father and former president Bill Clinton visited with evacuees at the Astrodome where they spent hours listening to stories of destroyed lives and property. The two former chief executives, who raised $11 million for victims of last year's Asian tsunami, announced the creation of the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund.

"They are beginning to think about the rest of their lives now, so I think it is up to us to fill in the blanks," Clinton said.

Corporations including Microsoft Corp., Nike Inc., Dillard's Inc. and the Trump Group have already pledged donations to the fund, and Wal-Mart and the Walton Family Foundation have given $23 million.

Also on hand with the current President Bush in Baton Rouge was The Rev. T.D. Jakes of Dallas, a friend and leader of a largely African-American ministry.

"America can be proud of the efforts of the churches and synagogues and mosques and community organizations that are helping these people," Bush said.

At the end, Bush repeated what has become his daily message since Friday when he first acknowledged that the results of the government response to Hurricane Katrina have been less than "acceptable."

"All levels of government are doing the best they can," he said. "If it's not going right, we'll make it right."

Almost all of the evacuees at the Baton Rouge shelter were black. Some gave Bush credit for the stepped-up relief efforts.

"He's doing good now, I guess, since he came down to see it for himself," Milton Beverly, of Jefferson Parish in suburban New Orleans, said as he held his four-month-old baby.

"I think he's doing what he can," said Richard Landres of New Orleans.

But Mildred Brown, who has been in the shelter since last Tuesday, said "I'm not star-struck. I need answers."

"I'm not interested in hand-shaking. I'm not interested in photo ops," she said. "This is going to take a lot of money."

From Baton Rouge, Bush – who made Friday stops in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana – headed to Poplarville, Miss., to meet with law enforcement and elected officials. He acknowledged the immense recovery and rebuilding task being faced, but expressed confidence it will lead to a revitalized region.

"I can't wait to join you in the joy of welcoming neighbors back into neighborhoods, and small businesses up and running, and cutting those ribbons that somebody is creating new jobs," Bush said.

White House spokeswoman Perino said Monday's trip was aimed at highlighting the hurricane's impact on inland areas that suffered damage and are now helping coastal evacuees.

The president's only view of damage on Monday came during a brief walking tour of West Ida Ave. in a middle-class, largely white part of Poplarville.

Residents of West Ida Ave., dealing with downed trees and powerlines and wrinkled carports, smiled as Bush approached to chat with then. The damage along the street was nothing compared to the devastation in New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf Coast.

Bush also talked with Alabama Power workers who had come to Mississippi to help restore electricity. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour also made the brief walking tour with Bush.

En route back to Washington, Bush spoke by phone from Air Force One with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who has been a vocal critic of the federal government's relief efforts.

Also Monday, Bush issued disaster declarations allowing federal aid for eight additional states taking refugees from the storm.

The states are Florida, Colorado, Utah, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Georgia and Tennessee.

(The Associated Press contributed to this story.


Why would the locals want the Feds (you know, the ones turning back water, fuel and other aid from the city) to have control of their National Guard troops?

Better logistics maybe? Everyone that is there is on the same page, working together, knowing what each other is doing, making sure nothing is being missed?

Make sense?

But which is it? First they complained about the federal government not getting down there fast enough to provide security (of course I'm still wondering where Blanco was with her state's Guard units?).... and then they don't want to cede temporary control of their Guards to the feds in order to coordinate logictics? Why? As far as I'm concerned, governor Blanco shares in the blame/lapses along with everyone else. She needs to be pointing the finger at no one else right now.

People want to ask valid questions as to where this Prez was? Where in the heck was the governor the state??

And the head of the NG down there gave very sound and solid reasons for not allowing it at this present time....

Their safety. These people coming down there in pickup trucks of supplies are unfamiliar with the terrain/region. They are just suppose to let them drive around? They don't know what/where hazards are still present from flood waters, contaminiation. They are also regions that are still unsafe (especially at night) from the criminal element. And how is the NG suppose to know if that person(s) driving around with a truckload of supplies isn't a looter?

The NG has enough to do right now that they don't need to be babystting and keeping guard over people who, though their intentions are good and noble, can cause more problems then solutions right now. But they asid that they will allow it in the near future when the situation stabilizes itself.

RBA
09-07-2005, 04:01 PM
People with pick up trucks? I like the spin. It was the freakin' American Red Cross with Freight Trucks being turned away. I'm sure there were people with pick up trucks trying to help too. But, really.

GAC
09-07-2005, 04:03 PM
They've got no problem deploying them half a world away but can't be bothered for an American city?

And the governor should have done so. After all - it's her state, and one of her functions as governor isn't it? She needs approval from the fedreral government to deploy/utilize her state militia when a disaster strikes her state? Get real.

RBA
09-07-2005, 04:06 PM
And the governor should have done so. After all - it's her state, and one of her functions as governor isn't it? She needs approval from the fedreral government to deploy/utilize her state militia when a disaster strikes her state? Get real.

She didn't deploy/utilize her state's miliita? Are you sure?

ochre
09-07-2005, 04:10 PM
Maybe it's not me that doesn't understand? Just going by what I read ochre. ;)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/shared/news/nation/stories/09/06KATRINA_BUSH.html

Bush returns to Gulf coast, repeating pledges of assistance
By KEN HERMAN
Cox News Service
Tuesday, September 06, 2005

BATON ROUGE, La. — President Bush returned Monday to the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, spreading a message of hope and walking a Mississippi street where the downed trees and damaged carports seemed minor compared to the devastation in New Orleans.

The president, traveling with wife Laura, spoke to emergency management and rescue officials in Louisiana and Mississippi, and started his day at a shelter set up at a Baton Rouge church.
George Clark/AP Photo/Hattiesburg American
(enlarge photo)
President Bush meets with Frank Gennin and his wife, Alice, Monday, in Poplarville, Miss., as he toured a neighborhood damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

For Bush, it was a chance to highlight the "armies of compassion" from community and faith-based organizations involved in helping those who survived the storm.

"The response of this country has been amazing," Bush said after he met with evacuees taken in by the Bethany World Prayer Center shelter set up in the church's recreation hall.

At least 100 mattresses were on the floor of the room. Children played and babies cried as Bush worked the room, consoling people, offering hugs and kisses, and signing autographs on shirts and hats. Laura Bush also talked with people in the shelter, as did Democratic Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

A polite coolness seemed to exist between Bush and Blanco, who had refused to cede control of her state's National Guard units to the federal government. A vocal critic of federal relief efforts, she has also hired a Clinton administration official, former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief James Lee Witt, to help run the emergency response in Louisiana.

Although Bush's trip to Baton Rouge was no secret, Blanco's office learned of the visit from reporters. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House tried to contact Blanco on Sunday to invite her to the Monday events, but was unable to reach her until "seven o'clockish" Monday morning.

Blanco gave Bush a terse introduction at the Baton Rouge emergency operations center. Bush praised Blanco for doing "your duty" in the hurricane's aftermath. After his remarks, Bush gave Blanco a kiss on the cheek.

At the Baton Rouge shelter, Bush and Blanco kept their distance as they talked with evacuees.

Meanwhile in Houston, the president's father and former president Bill Clinton visited with evacuees at the Astrodome where they spent hours listening to stories of destroyed lives and property. The two former chief executives, who raised $11 million for victims of last year's Asian tsunami, announced the creation of the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund.

"They are beginning to think about the rest of their lives now, so I think it is up to us to fill in the blanks," Clinton said.

Corporations including Microsoft Corp., Nike Inc., Dillard's Inc. and the Trump Group have already pledged donations to the fund, and Wal-Mart and the Walton Family Foundation have given $23 million.

Also on hand with the current President Bush in Baton Rouge was The Rev. T.D. Jakes of Dallas, a friend and leader of a largely African-American ministry.

"America can be proud of the efforts of the churches and synagogues and mosques and community organizations that are helping these people," Bush said.

At the end, Bush repeated what has become his daily message since Friday when he first acknowledged that the results of the government response to Hurricane Katrina have been less than "acceptable."

"All levels of government are doing the best they can," he said. "If it's not going right, we'll make it right."

Almost all of the evacuees at the Baton Rouge shelter were black. Some gave Bush credit for the stepped-up relief efforts.

"He's doing good now, I guess, since he came down to see it for himself," Milton Beverly, of Jefferson Parish in suburban New Orleans, said as he held his four-month-old baby.

"I think he's doing what he can," said Richard Landres of New Orleans.

But Mildred Brown, who has been in the shelter since last Tuesday, said "I'm not star-struck. I need answers."

"I'm not interested in hand-shaking. I'm not interested in photo ops," she said. "This is going to take a lot of money."

From Baton Rouge, Bush – who made Friday stops in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana – headed to Poplarville, Miss., to meet with law enforcement and elected officials. He acknowledged the immense recovery and rebuilding task being faced, but expressed confidence it will lead to a revitalized region.

"I can't wait to join you in the joy of welcoming neighbors back into neighborhoods, and small businesses up and running, and cutting those ribbons that somebody is creating new jobs," Bush said.

White House spokeswoman Perino said Monday's trip was aimed at highlighting the hurricane's impact on inland areas that suffered damage and are now helping coastal evacuees.

The president's only view of damage on Monday came during a brief walking tour of West Ida Ave. in a middle-class, largely white part of Poplarville.

Residents of West Ida Ave., dealing with downed trees and powerlines and wrinkled carports, smiled as Bush approached to chat with then. The damage along the street was nothing compared to the devastation in New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf Coast.

Bush also talked with Alabama Power workers who had come to Mississippi to help restore electricity. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour also made the brief walking tour with Bush.

En route back to Washington, Bush spoke by phone from Air Force One with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who has been a vocal critic of the federal government's relief efforts.

Also Monday, Bush issued disaster declarations allowing federal aid for eight additional states taking refugees from the storm.

The states are Florida, Colorado, Utah, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Georgia and Tennessee.

(The Associated Press contributed to this story.



Better logistics maybe? Everyone that is there is on the same page, working together, knowing what each other is doing, making sure nothing is being missed?

Make sense?

But which is it? First they complained about the federal government not getting down there fast enough to provide security (of course I'm still wondering where Blanco was with her state's Guard units?).... and then they don't want to cede temporary control of their Guards to the feds in order to coordinate logictics? Why? As far as I'm concerned, governor Blanco shares in the blame/lapses along with everyone else. She needs to be pointing the finger at no one else right now.

People want to ask valid questions as to where this Prez was? Where in the heck was the governor the state??

And the head of the NG down there gave very sound and solid reasons for not allowing it at this present time....

Their safety. These people coming down there in pickup trucks of supplies are unfamiliar with the terrain/region. They are just suppose to let them drive around? They don't know what/where hazards are still present from flood waters, contaminiation. They are also regions that are still unsafe (especially at night) from the criminal element. And how is the NG suppose to know if that person(s) driving around with a truckload of supplies isn't a looter?

The NG has enough to do right now that they don't need to be babystting and keeping guard over people who, though their intentions are good and noble, can cause more problems then solutions right now. But they asid that they will allow it in the near future when the situation stabilizes itself.
I've said time and time again that the state and local officials screwed up. But that's a "screwed up too", not "were the only ones to screw up".

Federal status > state status. National Guard troops belong to the president and the Department of Defense. The fact that the Governor didn't "cede" control over them is the reddest of herrings. If they wanted control over them put them on federal (Title 10) active duty orders. Those outweigh state active duty orders (Title 32). Always have and always will.

RBA
09-07-2005, 04:14 PM
I've said time and time again that the state and local officials screwed up. But that's a "screwed up too", not "were the only ones to screw up".

Federal status > state status. National Guard troops belong to the president and the Department of Defense. The fact that the Governor didn't "cede" control over them is the reddest of herrings. If they wanted control over them put them on federal (Title 10) active duty orders. Those outweigh state active duty orders (Title 32). Always have and always will.

You are correct. And the Federal Government had the responsiblity to coordinate all reponse and relief operation under an order enacted by the President of the U.S. before the hurricane hit.

What part of "all" does anyone not understand?

traderumor
09-07-2005, 04:18 PM
I've said time and time again that the state and local officials screwed up. But that's a "screwed up too", not "were the only ones to screw up".

Federal status > state status. National Guard troops belong to the president and the Department of Defense. The fact that the Governor didn't "cede" control over them is the reddest of herrings. If they wanted control over them put them on federal (Title 10) active duty orders. Those outweigh state active duty orders (Title 32). Always have and always will.And then there would be no issues about how Bush and the Feds came bullying his way in and pushing the female governor and the state of LA around, right? The article seems to make it crystal clear that the gov has drawn a line in the sand and will have to account for the implications of that herself. I don't see how that's spin by the Bush camp.

GAC
09-07-2005, 04:25 PM
People with pick up trucks? I like the spin. It was the freakin' American Red Cross with Freight Trucks being turned away. I'm sure there were people with pick up trucks trying to help too. But, really.

You can spin it all you want to Rob. You seem to love that word anyway. :rolleyes:

But it is not just the RC that is not being allowed into NO right now; but there are also private individuals showing up there with pickup trucks loaded with supplies. That came from the NG stationed there. Was watching the interview with them this morning on the Dayton news station. They stated there are still certain areas where even they won;t go into right now (especially at night).

Plus - the NG is also trying to provide security for those trying to get back in and check their homes and remove what belongings they can salvage.

And you or anyone else's efforts to try and embarass the NG units or FEMA down there should really stop. IMO - it's shameful.

You're not there. They are. They are now down there, in a very difficult situation, risking their lives. And all I've been hearin is some trying to take smacks at them because everytjhing is not proceeding as they, on the outside looking in, say it should be.

Be a Sean Penn then, and get of your butt and head down there then. ;)

Don't you work in security in the Air Force? Then why wouldn't you understand then that you need to secure a region, especially a region with many quadrants/areas as NO, and a place that has suffered so much devastastion, before you start letting anyone, even the RC, in with supply trucks.

FEMA and the NG has stated that there are still hazards, and there is still a problem, in certain areas (especially at night) where looter/criminal element are wanting to not evacuate, but hang around to do what they do best. They are still conducting building to building searches to get these people out. Even the mayor (Nagin) stated last night that there is under 10,000 still in the city - and he believes those are mainly comprised of elderly (who have been offered assistance and refuse to leave) AND looters wanting to hang around.

There are still people dying down there right now from being shot by that criminal element. Especially if they have something they want.

Right now - they can't guarantee these outside suppliers safety.

RBA
09-07-2005, 04:33 PM
Okay, you are talking several days after the hurricane. I was talking about the days after the Hurricane struck. The American Red Cross said FEMA wouldn't let them in when Geraldo and Sheppard Smith were reporting people dying.

Shameful? I guess you find no shame in starving people to death.

GAC
09-07-2005, 04:39 PM
She didn't deploy/utilize her state's miliita? Are you sure?

Not prior to the storm to help evacuate people in the city when a mandatory evac order was given. What does mandatory mean? Sure there are people who didn't want to leave. Then you help them with a little push (for their own safety).

Her preparartion and then response time to this disaster was slow. And yes -she is catching heat for it. She is the governor after all. Where was her leadership?

Congress Likely to Probe Guard Response

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050903/ap_on_re_us/katrina_national_guard

WASHINGTON - Another 10,000 National Guard troops are being sent to the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, raising their number to about 40,000, but questions linger about the speed with which troops were deployed.

Several states ready and willing to send National Guard troops to the rescue in New Orleans didn't get the go-ahead until days after the storm struck — a delay nearly certain to be investigated by Congress.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco help from his state's National Guard last Sunday, the day before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. Blanco accepted, but paperwork needed to get the troops en route didn't come from Washington until late Thursday.

California troops just began arriving in Louisiana on Friday, three days after flood waters devastated New Orleans and chaos broke out.

In fact, when New Orleans' levees gave way to deadly flooding on Tuesday, Louisiana's National Guard had received help from troops in only three other states: Ohio, which had nine people in Louisiana then; Oklahoma, 89; and Texas, 625, figures provided by the National Guard show.

Maj. Gen. Thomas Cutler, who leads the Michigan National Guard, said he anticipated a call for police units and started preparing them, but couldn't go until states in the hurricane zone asked them to come.

"We could have had people on the road Tuesday," Cutler said. "We have to wait and respond to their need."

The Michigan National Guard was asked for military police by Mississippi late Tuesday and by Louisiana officials late Wednesday. The state sent 182 MPs to Mississippi on Friday and had 242 headed to Louisiana on Saturday.

Typically, the authority to use the National Guard in a state role lies with the governor, who tells his or her adjutant general to order individual Guard units to begin duty. Turnaround time varies depending on the number of troops involved, their location and their assigned missions.

One factor that may have further complicated post-Katrina deployment arose when Louisiana discovered it needed Guardsmen to do more law enforcement duty because a large portion of the New Orleans police force was not functioning, according to Lt. Gen. Steven H. Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon.

Because the agreement that was already in existence for states to contribute Guard troops to Louisiana did not include a provision on their use in law enforcement, Blum said, Gov. Blanco had to get separate written agreements authorizing Guardsmen to do police-type duty.

Still, Blum said, this took only minutes to execute.