Ah, so it was my simplicity that unnerved you. I see. I promise to be more complicated for you next time, Chance.
Have you read this thread?? The timeline comes from (according to basso) the Times-Piccayune. Maybe it will diffuse some of the tension. And IMO it doesn't indemnify anyone it just clarifies at least some of the misgivings that have been casually tossed around.
When was Bush pushing for federal aid ? when he was on vacation during the storm? or was it during his photo op on Monday with a birthday cake? or maybe it was during his photo op with country music star Mark Wills on Tuesday? Maybe it was Condi Rice who asked for it during the intermission of the broadway show she attended on Tuesday perhaps it was Dick Cheney from his vacation home in Wyoming ? seriously, the LA Gov declared a emergency on Aug 26 so the right-wing push that somehow the Governor didn't send the right secret smoke signal is bull. There are two parts of this problem, 1. No one, not local, state or federal were prepared like they should of been - this has many causes, that I suspect all played a role - the failure of anyone to get the poor and sick out of NOLA during the mandatory evac is a disgrace 2. the super slow federal response once it was known that NOLA was in big trouble FEMA and other federal administrators have lied from day 1 about their response, this is a fact (what do you expect when the FEMA director has zero emergency management experience and is a political favor-appointment?) When need answers to both of these failures doesn't this scare the crap outta you? we saw this storm coming for days and we failed, wtf is gonna happen when something happens we can't see coming?
We saw the storm coming and followed doctrine established in the constitution in which the governor had to request aid. Read the timeline. One thing you said was true. We were not ready at any level of government for this storm. We were not prepared for the worst case scenario that unfolded before our eyes on CNN. The risk/reward matrix was considered and wrong decisions were made.
two things i heard today that lend credence to what you're saying: 1. my business partner has a family living with him who was displaced by the storm. they blame the mayor for failing to issue the mandatory evacuation on time. they're saying he issued it late at night...and the storm hit before dawn the next morning. i'm not sure if that's right or not. 2. the LA governor still hasn't allowed the fed govt to seize control of the LA national guard. is that true??? my understanding is the fed govt can't take control of the national guard in these situations without the states giving approval to do so.
Yes I did read it, but IMHO, the bigger question is this..... What did the billions of dollars poured into the Department of Homeland Security over the past 4 years get us, since it's obvious we are no better prepared to respond to a disaster than we were on September 10th, 2001? Think anyone will be held responsible for that boondoggle?
You cannot say we are no better. There is no comparison. We don't know what would've happened with any certainty. We have our opinions on what would have happened, all of us. This is arguably the worst disaster to ever hit our shores. Exactly what are we going to compare it to?
I have family in New Orleans (including a step brother still waiting to be evacuated) and they pretty much say the same thing. They were really offended by the Mayor's radio tirade last week. They think he's trying to deflect blame away from all of his pre-storm blunders. They are convinced that many local officials up to and including the Mayor are corrupt as the summer is hot and always have been. That's my understanding too. From what I understand, the Governor is afraid to give up control of the NG for fear that they will start firing on the people of New Orleans. If true, that strikes me as kind of strange.
That is correct. The President can nationalize the Guard without approval from the State. A good example of that was when JFK nationalized the Guard in Alabama in the 1960's against the wishes of Governor Wallace. It was ironic in that the same Guardsmen that were terrorizing African-Americans one week were protecting the rights of Blacks against Wallace the next.
I don't know what the internal situation is, but in terms of the law, the Governor does not have a choice. If Bush wants to nationalize the Guard, Kathleen Blanco cannot stop him.
FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations FEMA turns away experienced firefighters FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel FEMA won't let Red Cross deliver food FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital on board FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck FEMA turns away generators FEMA: "First Responders Urged Not To Respond"
OK, that makes sense. I thought that sounded odd that a Governor would have more say over the NG than the President.
this was interesting: http://drudgereport.com/flash3kt.htm NEW ORLEANS FLASHBACK: OFFICALS WARNED RESIDENTS 'YOU'LL BE ON YOUR OWN' Mon Sep 05 2005 18:57:15 ET Before residents had ever heard the words "Hurricane Katrina," the New Orleans TIMES-PICAYUNE ran a story warning residents: If you stay behind during a big storm, you'll be on your own! Editors at TIMES-PICAYUNE on Monday called for every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be fired. In an open letter to President Bush, the paper said: "Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been were not. That's to the government's shame." But the TIMES-PICAYUNE published a story on July 24, 2005 stating: City, state and federal emergency officials are preparing to give a historically blunt message: "In the event of a major hurricane, you're on your own." Staff writer Bruce Nolan reported some 7 weeks before Katrina: "In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm's way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation." "In the video, made by the anti-poverty agency Total Community Action, they urge those people to make arrangements now by finding their own ways to leave the city in the event of an evacuation. "You're responsible for your safety, and you should be responsible for the person next to you," Wilkins said in an interview. "If you have some room to get that person out of town, the Red Cross will have a space for that person outside the area. We can help you."
This is a good read for those who havn't thought of the aftermath of Katrina. Just think the president has allocated 10 million on funding for two of the most corrupt states in the US. I hope that those who are in need of the money the most get what they need. Link The ugly truth Why we couldn’t save the people of New Orleans Scene outside the Convention Center after spending four days in squalor after Hurricane Katrina. Bubbling up from the flood that destroyed New Orleans are images, beamed around the world, of America's original and continuing sin: the shabby, contemptuous treatment this country metes out, decade after decade, to poor people in general and the descendants of African slaves in particular. The world sees New Orleans burning and dying today, but the televised anarchy - the shooting and looting, needless deaths, helpless rage and maddening governmental incompetence - was centuries in the making. To the casual viewer, the situation is an incomprehensible mess that raises questions about the intelligence, sanity and moral worth of those trapped in the city. Why didn't those people evacuate before the hurricane? Why don't they just walk out of town now? And why should anyone care about people who are stealing and fighting the police? That hard, unsympathetic view is the traditional American response to the poverty, ignorance and rage that afflict many of us whose great-great-grandparents once made up the captive African slave labor pool. In far too many cities, including New Orleans, the marching orders on the front lines of American race relations are to control and contain the very poor in ghettos as cheaply as possible; ignore them completely if possible; and call in the troops if the brutes get out of line. By almost every statistical measure, New Orleans is a bad place to be poor. Half the city's households make less than $28,000 a year, and 28% of the population lives in poverty. In the late 1990s, the state's school systems ranked dead last in the nation in the number of computers per student (1 per 88), and Louisiana has the nation's second-highest percentage of adults who never finished high school. By the state's own measure, 47% of the public schools in New Orleans rank as "academically unacceptable." And Louisiana is the only one of the 50 states where the state legislature doesn't allocate money to pay for the legal defense of indigent defendants. The Associated Press reported this year that it's not unusual for poor people charged with crimes to stay in jail for nine months before getting a lawyer appointed. These government failures are not merely a matter of incompetence. Louisiana and New Orleans have a long, well-known reputation for corruption: as former congressman Billy Tauzin once put it, "half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment." That's putting it mildly. Adjusted for population size, the state ranks third in the number of elected officials convicted of crimes (Mississippi is No. 1). Recent scandals include the conviction of 14 state judges and an FBI raid on the business and personal files of a Louisiana congressman. In 1991, a notoriously corrupt Democrat named Edwin Edwards ran for governor against Republican David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan. Edwards, whose winning campaign included bumper stickers saying "Elect the Crook," is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for taking bribes from casino owners. Duke recently completed his own prison term for tax fraud. The rot included the New Orleans Police Department, which in the 1990s had the dubious distinction of being the nation's most corrupt police force and the least effective: the city had the highest murder rate in America. More than 50 officers were eventually convicted of crimes including murder, rape and robbery; two are currently on Death Row. The decision to subject an entire population to poverty, ignorance, injustice and government corruption as a way of life has its ugly moments, as the world is now seeing. New Orleans officials issued an almost cynical evacuation order in a city where they know full well that thousands have no car, no money for airfare or an interstate bus, no credit cards for hotels, and therefore no way to leave town before the deadly storm and flood arrived. The authorities provided no transportation out of the danger zone, apparently figuring the neglected thousands would somehow weather the storm in their uninsured, low-lying shacks and public housing projects. The poor were expected to remain invisible at the bottom of the pecking order and somehow weather the storm. But the flood confounded the plan, and the world began to see a tide of human misery rising from the water - ragged, sick, desperate and disorderly. Some foraged for food, some took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes. All in all, they acted exactly the way you could predict people would act who have been locked up in a ghetto for generations. The world also saw the breezy indifference with which government officials treated these tens of thousands of sick and dying citizens, even as the scope of the disaster became clear. President Bush initially shunned the Gulf Coast and headed to political fund-raisers in the West. That left matters in the bumbling hands of the director of emergency management, Michael Brown, who ranks No. 1 on the list of officials who ought to be fired when the crisis has passed. Even as local officials were publicly reporting assaults, fires and bedlam at local hospitals, Brown took to the airwaves to declare that "things are going well" as mayhem engulfed the city. When asked about the rising death toll, Brown attributed it to "people who did not heed the advance warnings." Brown's smug ignorance of the conditions of the place he was tasked to save became the final door slammed on the trap that tens of thousands of the city's poorest found themselves. The challenge for America is to remember the faces of the evacuees who will surely be ushered back into a black hole of public indifference as soon as the White House and local officials can manage it. While pledging ourselves to remember their mistreatment and fight for their cause, we should also be sure to cast a searching, skeptical eye on the money that Bush has pledged for rebuilding. Ten billion dollars are about to pass into the sticky hands of politicians in the No. 1 and No. 3 most corrupt states in America. Worried about looting? You ain't seen nothing yet.
It's things that happen every 50 or 100 years. Unfortunately, Bush has had two disasters in 4 years which is unlucky for him. 9/11 was an intelligence failure to be sure - it's a failure of gov't which includes the administration - because the administration HIRES the leaders of the different departments. If you put a crappy person to head up something important, and they muck it up, then the person who hired that guy must take blame as well. With Katrina - it was a failure on two levels - local and federal. On a local level, the failure was in evacuating. Bush told people to leave, and he declared La a state of emergency before the hurricane struck to allow FEMA to start acting. So he did his job there. The failure was in NOLA not being able to get poor people out - for that the blame must reside with them for poor planning. However; Bush has to take blame for how he organized FEMA under the department of Homeland Security. Clearly it wasn't done well - so he had a hand in the poor response. It has nothing to do with his vacations or when he came to visit - it's in his choice of leaders and organizational structure.
Impressive post. I don't know, but across party lines, would it be possible for you guys to agree that the head of FEMA does not appear to be doing a good job? I saw this one interview with him and just from the interview, he made a really incompetent first impression on me.
