Bush's response is not adequate

Page 33 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,083
3,408
136
Originally posted by: KK

Well, it looks like the state/local plan was not anywhere it needed to be. What does funding a plan and the damn levies got to do with one another? So the city can't maintain a police force so thats a bush problem too. Why was there not enough security at the dome? Why was there not enough supplies at the dome? Let me guess, it's bush's fault. It's the same sh1t with you rabid bush haters.


This is a federal emergency. If the state / city failed it does not a free pass at the federal level.

The fact still remains there was a failure on the federal level. Just admit it.

With the size of this disaster the bulk of the help would come from the federal level thus the bulk of the blame needs to be on the federal level.

Lets say you are right and there was a huge problem at the state / city level and they are the state and city level had all the resources to handle the situation. On day one Bush could have looked at the problem and said they are not doing thier job and send some people down there to reorganize thier resources and get the ball rolling without sending troops / supplies down there. But that did not happen. Bush just did not do jack.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: raildogg
lovely.

i was actually on the side of these people who are now blaming Bush for everything from oil to this hurricane. no more of that.

yes, Bush's response is not adequate.

the fact that you dont hold the mayor, the governor accountable simply because they are democrats shows you are a partisan animal. they are as much responsible for the failure as Bush is, probably much more responsible. but its ok, only republicans can do faulty things, democrats never make mistakes.

gotcha

I wondered when you would recant.

Originally posted by: BBond
I'm wondering how these right wingers here who are now, incredibly, excusing Bush's outright FAILURE to provide aid to 100,000 Americans during a national emergency, SCREAMED about the failure of the French to provide aid during the heat wave of 2003!

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Easy there, you'll blow a gasket! But yeah, that'd be interesting. Can you dig it up?

xxxxJohnGaltxxxx at his finest...

I can't believe I'm saying this:

There are some on this forum that deserve the comparison to xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx.... Raildogg does not.

I reserve xxxxJohnGaltxxxx comparisons to the uber-elite a-holes here.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: xaeniac
The state governor is the problem.. She did nothing
Issuing a state of emergency is doing nothing? Requesting National Guard units from other states is doing nothing?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: KK
Well, it looks like the state/local plan was not anywhere it needed to be. What does funding a plan and the damn levies got to do with one another? So the city can't maintain a police force so thats a bush problem too. Why was there not enough security at the dome? Why was there not enough supplies at the dome? Let me guess, it's bush's fault. It's the same sh1t with you rabid bush haters.
The evacuation plans that exist, afaik, plan on using the Superdome/Conv. Ctr./etc as temporary shelters only. They are not meant to be long-term shelters. Also, the evacuation plan calls for people to leave the city if they are able to. The city, in a 24-48hr timeframe, does not have the time nor the resources to forceably evacuate anyone else remaining. Look how long it took to clear 30,000-40,000 people from the Dome and the Conv. Ctr...several days....and that's with everyone in two locations. Now, take 100,000 people and spread them throughout the city. How in the hell are you going to round them up and put them on buses within 24-48hrs? It's just not feasible and the plans in place know that and account for that the best they can.

Now, it was known on Sunday that this storm was going to overwhelm state and local resources. There are only 1,500 police for New Orleans and they were busy with evacuations, law enforcement, rescue operations, etc. They cannot be tasked with providing food/water for those in the shelters. The city doesn't have a Hurricane Relief Task Force that would do those duties and have the supplies on-hand. That's why we have FEMA so that every city isn't wasting dollars/resources on items that may not ever be needed and may go back after a while. That's FEMA's job. Well, it was until the administration took over and FEMA was being reformed to push responsibility to the local/state level. Nice.

And, btw,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/katrina_national_guard
Bush had the legal authority to order the National Guard to the disaster area himself, as he did after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks . But the troops four years ago were deployed for national security protection, and presidents of both parties traditionally defer to governors to deploy their own National Guardsmen and request help from other states when it comes to natural disasters.

In addition to Guard help, the federal government could have activated, but did not, a major air support plan under a pre-existing contract with airlines. The program, called Civilian Reserve Air Fleet, lets the government quickly put private cargo and passenger planes into service.

The CRAF provision has been activated twice, once for the Persian
Gulf War and again for the Iraq war.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: KK

Well, it looks like the state/local plan was not anywhere it needed to be. What does funding a plan and the damn levies got to do with one another? So the city can't maintain a police force so thats a bush problem too. Why was there not enough security at the dome? Why was there not enough supplies at the dome? Let me guess, it's bush's fault. It's the same sh1t with you rabid bush haters.

Do you have any idea what F_E_M_A stands for???

As for Bush hating, I would expect EVERY American to hate ANYONE who has acted as criminally incompetent in a national emergency as Bush has. Wouldn't you?
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: xaeniac
The state governor is the problem.. She did nothing
Issuing a state of emergency is doing nothing? Requesting National Guard units from other states is doing nothing?

What was nagin talking about on the news when he was talking the governer needed 24 hours to make a decision? this happened on the day bush, nagin, and the governer met.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
From Conjur's link:

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.

HOW THE FVCK DOES ANYONE, EVEN YOU BLIND BUSH LOYALIST IDIOTS, POSSIBLY EXCUSE THIS???

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: xaeniac
The state governor is the problem.. She did nothing
Issuing a state of emergency is doing nothing? Requesting National Guard units from other states is doing nothing?
What was nagin talking about on the news when he was talking the governer needed 24 hours to make a decision? this happened on the day bush, nagin, and the governer met.
I'm not aware Nagin said anything during that photo-op. Nagin wasn't allowed to speak. However, I've heard his AAR interview and saw his interview on 60 Minutes and he said nothing of a 24-hour delay requirement.


BTW, here's a good rundown on the failure that is now FEMA:

Why FEMA Was Missing in Action
# Most of the agency's preparedness budget and focus are related to terrorism, not disasters.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld...la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
WASHINGTON ? While the federal government has spent much of the last quarter-century trimming the safety nets it provides Americans, it has dramatically expanded its promise of protection in one area ? disaster.

Since the 1970s, Washington has emerged as the insurer of last resort against floods, fires, earthquakes and ? after 2001 ? terrorist attacks.

But the government's stumbling response to the storm that devastated the nation's Gulf Coast reveals that the federal agency singularly most responsible for making good on Washington's expanded promise has been hobbled by cutbacks and a bureaucratic downgrading.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency once speedily delivered food, water, shelter and medical care to disaster areas, and paid to quickly rebuild damaged roads and schools and get businesses and people back on their feet. Like a commercial insurance firm setting safety standards to prevent future problems, it also underwrote efforts to get cities and states to reduce risks ahead of time and plan for what they would do if calamity struck.

But in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, FEMA lost its Cabinet-level status as it was folded into the giant new Department of Homeland Security. And in recent years it has suffered budget cuts, the elimination or reduction of key programs and an exodus of experienced staffers.

The agency's core budget, which includes disaster preparedness and mitigation, has been cut each year since it was absorbed by the Homeland Security Department in 2003. Depending on what the final numbers end up being for next fiscal year, the cuts will have been between about 2% and 18%.

The agency's staff has been reduced by 500 positions to 4,735. Among the results, FEMA has had to cut one of its three emergency management teams, which are charged with overseeing relief efforts in a disaster. Where it once had "red," "white" and "blue" teams, it now has only red and white.


Three out of every four dollars the agency provides in local preparedness and first-responder grants go to terrorism-related activities, even though a recent Government Accountability Office report quotes local officials as saying what they really need is money to prepare for natural disasters and accidents.

"They've taken emergency management away from the emergency managers," complained Morrie Goodman, who was FEMA's chief spokesman during the Clinton administration. "These operations are being run by people who are amateurs at what they are doing."

Richard W. Krimm, a former senior FEMA official for several administrations, agreed. "It was a terrible mistake to take disaster response and recovery ? and disaster preparedness and mitigation, and put them in Homeland Security," he said.


Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledged in interviews Sunday that Washington was insufficiently prepared for the hurricane that laid waste to New Orleans and surrounding areas. But he defended its performance by arguing that the size of the storm was beyond anything his department could have anticipated and that primary responsibility for handling emergencies rested with state and local, not federal, officials.

"Before this happened, I said ? we need to build a preparedness capacity going forward," Chertoff told NBC's "Meet the Press." He added that that was something "we have not yet succeeded in doing."

Under the law, Chertoff said, state and local officials must direct initial emergency operations. "The federal government comes in and supports those officials," he said.

Chertoff's remarks, which echoed earlier statements by President Bush, prompted withering rebukes both from former senior FEMA staffers and outside experts.

"They can't do that," former agency chief of staff Jane Bullock said of Bush administration efforts to shift responsibility away from Washington. "The moment the president declared a federal disaster, it became a federal responsibility?. The federal government took ownership over the response," she said. Bush declared a disaster in Louisiana and Mississippi when the storm hit a week ago.

"What's awe-inspiring here is how many federal officials didn't issue any orders," said Paul C. Light, an authority on government operations at New York University.

Evidence of confusion extended beyond FEMA and the Homeland Security Department on Sunday.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said that conditions in New Orleans and elsewhere could quickly escalate into a major public health crisis. But asked whether his agency had dispatched teams in advance of the storm and flooding, Leavitt answered, "No."

"None of these teams were pre-positioned," he told CNN's "Late Edition." "We're having to organize them ? as we go."


Such an ad hoc approach might not have surprised Americans until recent decades because the federal government was thought to have few responsibilities for disaster relief, and what duties it did have were mostly delegated to the American Red Cross.

"A century ago, no one would have expected a massive federal response. Most people viewed natural disasters mainly as things to be endured on their own or with the help of their neighbors and communities," said Harvard University economic historian David A. Moss, whose recent book, "When All Else Fails: Government as the Ultimate Risk Manager," traces Washington's expanding duties in protecting Americans from all sorts of risks.

In 1927, President Coolidge described the federal role in aiding victims of a devastating flood of the lower Mississippi River this way: "To direct the sympathy of our people to the sad plight of thousands of their fellow citizens, and to urge that generous contributions be promptly forthcoming."

But starting with the New Deal of the 1930s and with increasing vigor in recent decades, Washington sought to prevent disasters, both natural and man-made, and to partially compensate state and local governments, companies and even individuals when calamities did strike.

The government reacted to Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972 by providing victims with grants and low-cost loans. It responded to a flood of the upper Mississippi in 1993 by approving $6.3 billion in aid. Comparing the federal government's response in 1927 to its efforts in 1993, Moss concluded that Washington made up less than 4% of the estimated losses in the earlier flood, but more than 50% in the later one.

Within 10 days of the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress and Bush had OKd $40 billion in aid, including $15 billion in grants and loans for the staggering airline industry and $4.3 billion to compensate the families of victims.

"The federal government has dramatically increased its role in absorbing disaster losses after the fact," Moss said. "Until recently, many may have assumed we'd made similar strides in disaster prevention."

FEMA was created in 1979 in response to criticism about Washington's fragmented reaction to a series of disasters, including Hurricane Camille, which devastated the Mississippi coast 10 years earlier. The agency was rocked by scandal in the 1980s and turned in such a poor performance after Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida in 1992 that President George H.W. Bush is thought to have lost votes as a result.

But according to a variety of former officials and outside experts, the agency experienced a renaissance under President Clinton's director, James Lee Witt, speedily responding to the 1993 Mississippi flood, the 1994 Northridge earthquake and other disasters.

Witt's biggest change was to get FEMA to focus on reducing risks ahead of disasters and funding local prevention programs.


After the 1993 flood, for instance, Witt's agency bought homes and businesses nearest the water and moved their occupants to safer locations. The result in one Illinois town was that although more than 400 people applied for disaster aid after the flood, only 11 needed to apply two years later when the river again jumped its banks.

"He got communities to take practical steps like encouraging homeowners to bolt buildings to foundations in earthquake-prone areas and elevate living space in flood-prone ones," said Howard Kunreuther, co-director of the Wharton Risk Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

But with the change of administration in 2001, many of Witt's prevention programs were reduced or cut entirely. After Sept. 11, former FEMA officials and outside authorities said, Washington's attention turned to terrorism to the exclusion of almost anything else.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
From Conjur's link:

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.

HOW THE FVCK DOES ANYONE, EVEN YOU BLIND BUSH LOYALIST IDIOTS, POSSIBLY EXCUSE THIS???

Confess! You don't think logically, you just think hatefully.

 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: BBond
From Conjur's link:

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.

HOW THE FVCK DOES ANYONE, EVEN YOU BLIND BUSH LOYALIST IDIOTS, POSSIBLY EXCUSE THIS???

Confess! You don't think logically, you just think hatefully.

Right on cue.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/1stdebate3.html
MR. LEHRER: New question. We've been talking about a lot of specific issues. It's often said that in the final analysis, about 90 percent of being the president of the United States is dealing with the unexpected, not with issues that came up in the campaign. Vice President Gore, can you point to a decision, an action you have taken that illustrates your ability to handle the unexpected, the crisis under fire, et cetera?

<Gore's response snipped>

GOV. BUSH: Well, I've been standing up to big Hollywood, big trial lawyers -- what was the question? It was about emergencies, wasn't it? (Chuckles.)

I can remember the fires that swept Parker County, Texas. I remember the floods that swept our state. I remember going down to Del Rio, Texas. I've got to pay the administration a compliment -- James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis. But that's the time when you're tested not only -- it's a time to test your mettle, it's a time to test your heart when you see people whose lives have been turned upside down. It broke my heart to go to the flood scene in Del Rio where a fellow and his family just got completely uprooted. The only thing I knew to do was to get aid as quickly as possible, which we did with state and federal help, and to put my arms around the man and his family and cry with them. But that's what governors do. Governors are oftentimes found on the front line of catastrophic situations.

Even Norah O'Donnell, apologist extraordinaire, is admitting he was "slow to it"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509060001
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,369
6,663
126
I got myself a hummer that's army spec and a 20 man river raft. I bought $100,000 in rations, a water purifying plant, 20,000 sand bags and now that bastard landlord wants the rent. It's a disaster. And while I was typing out this message my neighbor drowned. I'm so mad I could kill. Who oh who can I kill. All this pain,,,,,just give me somebody to kill.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: PELarson
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eilute
Well he does have to address it in some way. I'm not too sure what he should do differently.

As far as disasters go, this may prove to be larger than 9/11. We do not yet know how much damage there is.

WTF? Folks, this is MUCH worse than 9/11.

And that is the problem with the current administration.

We have had almost 4 years to prepare for a major disaster. We knew a major storm could hit landfall at any point along the coast. But apparently instead of having a worse case plan to start from they FEMA and the BUsh administration are winging it.

5 days to get personnel and equipment rolling and maybe into a area closer to the expected disaster area.

If they can't figure out how to build contingence plans hire someone from the War Plans department of the Pentagon to show your personnel how to do it.

I agree. What I'm not sure about is how "Homeland Security" and FEMA interact. "Homeland Security" is under the control of the President but unless terrorists caused Katrina I'm not sure this department has the authority to take any action.

FEMA on the other hand has more authority to take action than any other agency. Under such conditions they have absolute power over the President, the Constitution, and the People of the United States. So, what is their problem.

The same thing happened in August of 1992 when FEMA responded very slowly to Hurricane Andrew. Andrew did 30 billion dollars in damage. The dollar damage of Hurricane Katrina will be about the same Andrew, the ocean damage is likely to be much less, but the human death toll could be the worst we have ever seen.

Is it time to make FEMA responsible to Congress or even the President? In 1992 President Bush saw that FEMA was, well, doing nothing and jumped into action. It looks like President Bush will have to do the same.

FEMA. Federal Emergency Malfesance Agency
(BTW, if you liked that acronym... EPA = Environmental Pollution Agency... think MTBE)

Ok, setting aside the sarcasm and humor for a bit.

Obviously FEMA is not under the control of the President thus, the President could not force them to take action directly. He could threaten to cut funding but at least one political party would be calling for impeachment if he took such an action.

I was wondering why FEMA took so long to respond. What happens when a Governor refuses help from the President and refuses to call out the National Guard


How much did the Louisiana Government really plan to help the people? It seems that two months earlier they may have stated they would not provide enough help. Perhaps this is why President Bush declared a state of emergency before the storm hit. He also offered assistance by sending Federal troops. Why did the Louisiana Governor refuse such an offer if they knew months (years?) ahead of time that they could not provide the support themselves.

"And yet apparently there was no emergency plan and no resources to evacuate "the careless, the homeless, the aged and infirm." So, again, with the city and state not having an emergency plan why would they refuse help from the President? I?m sure they were not playing politics with peoples lives.

Wait, maybe they were. Notice how the Washington Post slants the offer of aid to Louisiana. Remember local, state, and federal authorities had already agreed that Louisiana did not have the resources to handle such an event. Local and State authorities even held a press conference in July to warn their citizens that they would not be able to help. Even before the hurricane hit the President urged the people of New Orleans to evacuate. He also declared a state of emergency before Katrina hit the coast. He also offered aid. Now to answer my question about how they slanted the offer of help.

?federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday?

Blanco Refused to Act

So, the Democrats call an offer of help ?wresting authority? but the Democrats want the President to ignore the Governor and send in troops. That would probably be an impeachable offense for a conservative President (a liberal President would be hailed as a savior).

How long did it take the Governor to recognize they had a disaster? Remember, the President declared a state of emergency before the storm hit.

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday?.. Two, or perhaps three days later. Of course it was five or six days after the President offered help. Was the Governor of Louisiana watching the same reports the rest of us were? Well, maybe. The problems and delays were being reported as the fault of the President of the United States so why rush. After all, what is the problem with 80,000 dead if it means getting control of the Federal Government? (80,000 deaths was the estimate of eventual deaths that I heard about two days after Katrina hit New Orleans.)

In fact it appears that the Governor was so busy playing CYA that they could not be bothered with helping the people of their state? Will Louisiana now elect a Republican Governor?

Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state?s victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort.

Again, she wouldn?t work with FEMA but is working with a former Clinton administrator to protect herself. Wow.


So, did FEMA delay? (Democrats, remember, this is CNN talking! Also note that it was reported on August 29. That is at least two days before the Governor of Louisiana finally decided that they should call for help.
FEMA goes into disaster mode for Katrina

President Bush, as he readied the federal government for a massive relief effort, on Sunday urged people in the path of Hurricane Katrina to forget anything but their safety and move to higher ground as instructed.

As the Category 4 the storm surged ashore just east of New Orleans, Louisiana, on Monday, FEMA had medical teams, rescue squads and groups prepared to supply food and water poised in a semicircle around the city, its director, Michael Brown, said.



President Declares Major Disaster For Louisiana on August 29



FEMA: First Responders Urged Not To Respond To Hurricane Impact Areas Unless Dispatched By State, Local Authorities

WASHINGTON D.C. -- Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response and head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), today urged all fire and emergency services departments not to respond to counties and states affected by Hurricane Katrina without being requested and lawfully dispatched by state and local authorities under mutual aid agreements and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.

Again, the delay by the Governor of Louisiana would have been billed as an invasion by the liberal media had the President ordered troops into Louisiana. The President could not force FEMA to move in without authority.

So, we know why FEMA and the President delayed even though they were ready to help six days before the Governor of Louisiana was. I will allow others to determine why the Governor delayed for nearly a week.



edited to fix a broken quote
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,369
6,663
126
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: PELarson
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eilute
Well he does have to address it in some way. I'm not too sure what he should do differently.

As far as disasters go, this may prove to be larger than 9/11. We do not yet know how much damage there is.

WTF? Folks, this is MUCH worse than 9/11.

And that is the problem with the current administration.

We have had almost 4 years to prepare for a major disaster. We knew a major storm could hit landfall at any point along the coast. But apparently instead of having a worse case plan to start from they FEMA and the BUsh administration are winging it.

5 days to get personnel and equipment rolling and maybe into a area closer to the expected disaster area.

If they can't figure out how to build contingence plans hire someone from the War Plans department of the Pentagon to show your personnel how to do it.

I agree. What I'm not sure about is how "Homeland Security" and FEMA interact. "Homeland Security" is under the control of the President but unless terrorists caused Katrina I'm not sure this department has the authority to take any action.

FEMA on the other hand has more authority to take action than any other agency. Under such conditions they have absolute power over the President, the Constitution, and the People of the United States. So, what is their problem.

The same thing happened in August of 1992 when FEMA responded very slowly to Hurricane Andrew. Andrew did 30 billion dollars in damage. The dollar damage of Hurricane Katrina will be about the same Andrew, the ocean damage is likely to be much less, but the human death toll could be the worst we have ever seen.

Is it time to make FEMA responsible to Congress or even the President? In 1992 President Bush saw that FEMA was, well, doing nothing and jumped into action. It looks like President Bush will have to do the same.

FEMA. Federal Emergency Malfesance Agency
(BTW, if you liked that acronym... EPA = Environmental Pollution Agency... think MTBE)

Ok, setting aside the sarcasm and humor for a bit.

Obviously FEMA is not under the control of the President thus, the President could not force them to take action directly. He could threaten to cut funding but at least one political party would be calling for impeachment if he took such an action.

I was wondering why FEMA took so long to respond. What happens when a Governor refuses help from the President and refuses to call out the National Guard


How much did the Louisiana Government really plan to help the people? It seems that two months earlier they may have stated they would not provide enough help. Perhaps this is why President Bush declared a state of emergency before the storm hit. He also offered assistance by sending Federal troops. Why did the Louisiana Governor refuse such an offer if they knew months (years?) ahead of time that they could not provide the support themselves.

"And yet apparently there was no emergency plan and no resources to evacuate "the careless, the homeless, the aged and infirm." ">http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0905/01edwitt.html</a> So, again, with the city and state not having an emergency plan why would they refuse help from the President? I?m sure they were not playing politics with peoples lives.

Wait, maybe they were. Notice how the Washington Post slants the offer of aid to Louisiana. Remember local, state, and federal authorities had already agreed that Louisiana did not have the resources to handle such an event. Local and State authorities even held a press conference in July to warn their citizens that they would not be able to help. Even before the hurricane hit the President urged the people of New Orleans to evacuate. He also declared a state of emergency before Katrina hit the coast. He also offered aid. Now to answer my question about how they slanted the offer of help.

?federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday?

Blanco Refused to Act

So, the Democrats call an offer of help ?wresting authority? but the Democrats want the President to ignore the Governor and send in troops. That would probably be an impeachable offense for a conservative President (a liberal President would be hailed as a savior).

How long did it take the Governor to recognize they had a disaster? Remember, the President declared a state of emergency before the storm hit.

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday?.. Two, or perhaps three days later. Of course it was five or six days after the President offered help. Was the Governor of Louisiana watching the same reports the rest of us were? Well, maybe. The problems and delays were being reported as the fault of the President of the United States so why rush. After all, what is the problem with 80,000 dead if it means getting control of the Federal Government? (80,000 deaths was the estimate of eventual deaths that I heard about two days after Katrina hit New Orleans.)

In fact it appears that the Governor was so busy playing CYA that they could not be bothered with helping the people of their state? Will Louisiana now elect a Republican Governor?

Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state?s victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort.

Again, she wouldn?t work with FEMA but is working with a former Clinton administrator to protect herself. Wow.


So, did FEMA delay? (Democrats, remember, this is CNN talking! Also note that it was reported on August 29. That is at least two days before the Governor of Louisiana finally decided that they should call for help.
FEMA goes into disaster mode for Katrina

President Bush, as he readied the federal government for a massive relief effort, on Sunday urged people in the path of Hurricane Katrina to forget anything but their safety and move to higher ground as instructed.

As the Category 4 the storm surged ashore just east of New Orleans, Louisiana, on Monday, FEMA had medical teams, rescue squads and groups prepared to supply food and water poised in a semicircle around the city, its director, Michael Brown, said.



President Declares Major Disaster For Louisiana on August 29



FEMA: First Responders Urged Not To Respond To Hurricane Impact Areas Unless Dispatched By State, Local Authorities

WASHINGTON D.C. -- Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response and head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), today urged all fire and emergency services departments not to respond to counties and states affected by Hurricane Katrina without being requested and lawfully dispatched by state and local authorities under mutual aid agreements and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.

Again, the delay by the Governor of Louisiana would have been billed as an invasion by the liberal media had the President ordered troops into Louisiana. The President could not force FEMA to move in without authority.

So, we know why FEMA and the President delayed even though they were ready to help six days before the Governor of Louisiana was. I will allow others to determine why the Governor delayed for nearly a week.

I seen this guy in a swimming pool drowning one time, at least I think he was, but I didn't do nutten cause he didn't ask me to. Figured I better not violate his personal space.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice


Again, the delay by the Governor of Louisiana would have been billed as an invasion by the liberal media had the President ordered troops into Louisiana. The President could not force FEMA to move in without authority.

So, we know why FEMA and the President delayed even though they were ready to help six days before the Governor of Louisiana was. I will allow others to determine why the Governor delayed for nearly a week.

Are you out of your mind? Or do you actually believe we're stupid enough to believe that load of bullsh!t? THE MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS AND THE GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA WERE BEGGING FOR AID THAT DIDN'T APPEAR. WE WERE ALL ALIVE LAST WEEK. WE ALL WITNESSED IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR OWN EYES.

HOW CAN YOU SPOUT THESE OUTRIGHT LIES???

 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Wait, President Bush declared it a Federal Emergency BEFORE the hurricane hit Lousiana? Fema and the National Guard were already there before hand?

President Bush publically asked the people of New Orleans to leave?

Yep, President Bush should have done more. Maybe he should have declared Marshall Law on Sunday and forced people to leave. Is that what President Clinton would have done?
The Gov. declared a state of emergency on Aug. 26. She asked for military assistance on Aug. 28. Gen. Honore said he was staged and ready and waiting on the word from the WH to go in.

That word didn't arrive until Thur.

Why?

Then that is the real problem. It seems liberals tend to believe only what the mainstream media show. Even when what is show is proven to be a lie liberals tend to think "fake but true."

WTF is that supposed to mean? You saying CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. were faking the video of tens of thousands of people trapped in the Superdome and the Conv. Ctr. with no food and water? That those air/water rescues were a Hollywood fabrication?


Why? I told you that I would be posting... read that post and you will know why.

Your last paragraph is an interesting attempt at shifting the subject. What you fail to examine is why help was delayed. There is no need for you to examine such issues since the mainstream media didn't deem such reasons important for you to know. Had you looked beyond the mainstream media then you would have found your own answer. Hence, what (typical language excluded) that is supposed to mean.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Hey expert idiot, haven't you seen this???

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976"> Governor Blanco asks President to Declare an Emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina
</a>

DATED AUGUST 27, 2005. WTF ELSE DID BUSH NEED? SOMEONE TO TAKE HIM BY THE HAND AND TELL HIM IT'S TIME TO END THE VACATION AND DO HIS FVCKING JOB???

 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
That's right people. Keep excusing these criminals. You neocons cheered as Bush followed Norquist's plans to "starve the beast". Well, now you can see quite clearly the effects of that starvation. The USA, the "Greatest Nation On Earth," the "Last Remaining Superpower," can't even get water and food to their own during a national emergency.

Shame on all of you apologist fvcking liars. I hope you all have the opportunity to sit in a sewage and chemical cocktail without even the most basic aid for FIVE DAYS when your turn comes.

The Perfect Storm and the Feral City

By Tom Engelhardt

The headline was: "Direct hit in New Orleans could mean a modern Atlantis," and the first paragraph of the story read: "More than 1.2 million people in metropolitan New Orleans were warned to get out Tuesday as [the] 140-mph hurricane churned toward the Gulf Coast, threatening to submerge this below-sea-level city in what could be the most disastrous storm to hit in nearly 40 years." That was USA Today and the only catch was -- the piece had been written on September 14, 2004 as Hurricane Ivan seemed to be barreling toward New Orleans.

I commented at the time: "When ?Ivan the Terrible' threatened New Orleans, correspondents there had a field day discussing whether the city might literally disappear beneath the waves -- this was referred to as the ?Atlantis scenario.'" I was then trying to point out that we might indeed be entering a new, globally warmed world of Xtreme weather and no connections whatsoever were being made in the media. At the time, global warming, if discussed at all, was a captive of the far north (melting glaciers, unnerved Inuit, robins making miraculous appearances in Alaska), and "Atlantis scenarios" were the property of distant islands like the atolls that make up the tiny South Pacific nation of Tuvalu, threatened with abandonment due to rising ocean waters and ever fiercer, ever less seasonal storms And yet just short of a year ago, not only was it well known that New Orleans' levees weren't fit for a class 5 hurricane or that the Bush administration was slashing the budget of the Army Corps of Engineers, but the "Atlantis scenario" was already somewhere on the collective mind. Now, it has been upon us for almost a week.

Much of New Orleans has become the Atlantis from hell, a toxic sludge pool of a looted former city, filled with dead bodies, burning in places, threatened with diseases like cholera and typhus that haven't visited the Big Easy since early in the last century, and with thousands upon thousands of the black poor and a few of the stranded better-to-do like doctors, nurses, and a few local officials left for days on end with next to no way out. It is, in short, the feral city that thirty years of science fiction films (and post-apocalyptic novels) have delivered to the American public as entertainment as well as prophesy. (Think, Escape from New York).

Now, try this passage: "The evacuation of New Orleans in the face of [the] hurricane... looked sinisterly like Strom Thurmond's version of the Rapture. Affluent white people fled the Big Easy in their SUVs, while the old and car-less -- mainly Black -- were left behind in their below-sea-level shotgun shacks and aging tenements to face the watery wrath." Admittedly a vivid description, but certainly commonplace enough at the moment -- except that it, too, was written back in September 2004 by Mike Davis, also for Tomdispatch, and prophetically labeled, "Poor, Black, and Left Behind." It, too, concerned not Katrina's but Ivan's approach to New Orleans. So there we are. It was possible to know then the fundaments of just about everything that's happened now -- and not just from Tomdispatch either.

In the last week, we've seen many of the black poor of New Orleans not only left behind in a new Atlantis, but thousands upon thousands of them -- those who didn't die in their wheelchairs, or on highway overpasses, or in the ill-fated convention center, or unattended and forgotten in their homes -- sent off on what looked very much like a new trail of tears. Right now, above all, New Orleans and the Mississippi coast, as so many reporters have observed with shock, are simply the Bangladesh of North America (after a disastrous set of monsoons), or a Kinshasa (without the resources). Soon, if Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has anything to do with it, the city may simply be consigned to the slagheap of history or a lot of it, as he so delicately put it to a suburban weekly in Illinois (where a few farmers who need the crucial deep water port of New Orleans to send their upcoming crops onto the global market may take umbrage), perhaps "bulldozed." Someday, Katrina may be seen as the "perfect storm," the harbinger of a future for which we remain far more adamantly, obdurately unwilling to prepare than even the Bush administration was for this localized "Atlantis scenario."

Iraq in America: Parallels and Connections

New Orleans is not the only toxic sludge pool in sight. Let's not forget the toxic sludge pool of Bush administration policy which came so clearly into view as Katrina ripped the scrim off our society, revealing an Iraqi-style reality here at home. Unlike conquered and occupied Iraq, the strip-mining of this country in recent years has taken place largely out of sight. While Baghdad was turned into some kind of dead zone of insecurity, lack of electricity, lack of gas, lack of jobs, lack of just about everything a human being in a modern city has come to expect, American cities -- until last week -- stood seemingly untouched in what was still proudly called "the world's last superpower." But just out of sight, the coring, gutting, and dismantling of the civilian governmental support system of the United States, that famed "safety net," was well underway. Bush administration proponents and conservative ideologues had long talked about "starving the beast"; but, until Katrina hit, it remained for many Americans at best a kind of political figure of speech.

Now we know for real. The beast has been starved; or rather, the beasts have been fed and the much-maligned part of the state that protected its citizens with something other than guns has been starved. What Katrina's course through Mississippi and Louisiana revealed was the real meaning of starvation. It seems we no longer have the capacity for a full-scale civilian response to a major disaster. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security and led by an incompetent who had been fired from his previous job as head of the International Arabian Horse Association, has had "its ties to state emergency programs? weakened, and? has reduced spending on disaster preparation." In the same way, we now know that the Army Corps of Engineers was financially reined in on crucial levee work in New Orleans. Much of this sort of thing was done under the guise of preparing for, or fighting, or funding the war on terror at home and abroad. Many pundits, for instance, have remarked on the obvious fact -- which had previously worried the governors of many states -- that significant chunks of the National Guard and, just as important for disaster relief, its heavy equipment are to be found in Iraq, not here to be called upon in an emergency. (And when the avian flu, or the next health disaster, suddenly hits our country, consider it a guarantee -- the media will again be filled with the same sort of shock about the civilian response to the crisis, because our public health system has also been gutted and de-funded under the guise of the war on terrorism.)

Over the last years, just about everything of a helping nature that is governmental, other than the military, has begun to be starved or stripped by the looters of this administration -- set loose in Washington rather than Baghdad or New Orleans. If you want a signal of this, we should all be wincing every time the President gets up, as he did the other day in the presence of his father and Bill Clinton, and shakes the tin cup, urging "the private sector" and generous citizens to fill in -- an impossibility -- for what his administration won't pony up.

The Bush people undoubtedly thought that they would be able to slip out of town in 2008 without paying the price. But when Katrina roared onto the vulnerable coasts of Mississippi and Louisiana, it swept all of the Bush administration's devastating policies -- environmental, fiscal, energy, and military, as well as its plans for the unraveling of the civilian infrastructure -- into a perfect storm of policy catastrophe that, ironically, may threaten the administration itself. By the time motorists in non-disaster states return from a Labor Day with $3-4 a gallon (or more) gas (and possibly long lines) to an ongoing catastrophe which will take months, if not our lifetime, to fully unfold, it's possible that the levees of the President's base of support -- that 40% which still approved of his administration in the latest Gallup Poll, conducted the week before Katrina hit -- will have been breached for the first time.

Think of our last two years in Iraq, which has left the world's most powerful military running on baling wire and duct tape, as a kind of coming attractions for Katrina. In fact, so many bizarre connections or parallels are suggested by the Bush administration's war in Iraq as to stagger the imagination. Here are just six of the parallels that immediately came to my mind:

1. Revelations of unexpected superpower helplessness: A single catastrophic war against a modest-sized, not particularly dramatically armed minority insurgency in one oil land has brought the planet's mightiest military to a complete, grinding, disastrous halt and sent its wheels flying off in all directions. A single not-exactly-unexpected hurricane leveling a major American city and the coastlines of two states, has brought the emergency infrastructure of the world's mightiest power to a complete, grinding, disastrous halt and sent its wheels flying off in all directions.

2. Planning ignored: It's now notorious that the State Department did copious planning for a post-invasion, occupied Iraq, all of which was ignored by the Pentagon and Bush administration neocons when the country was taken. In New Orleans, it's already practically notorious that endless planning, disaster war-gaming, and the like were done for how to deal with a future "Atlantis scenario," none of which was attended to as Katrina bore down on the southeastern coast.

3. Lack of Boots on the ground: It's no less notorious that, from the moment before the invasion of Iraq when General Eric Shinseki told a congressional committee that "several hundred thousand troops" would minimally be needed to successfully occupy Iraq and was more or less laughed out of Washington, Donald Rumsfeld's new, lean, mean military has desperately lacked boots on the ground (hence those Louisiana and Mississippi National Guards off in Iraq). Significant numbers of National Guard only made it to New Orleans on the fifth and sixth days after Katrina struck and regular military boots-on-the-ground have been few and far between. No Pentagon help was pre-positioned for Katrina and, typically enough, the Navy hospital ship Comfort, scheduled to help, had not left Baltimore harbor by Friday morning for its many day voyage to the Gulf.

4. Looting: The inability (or unwillingness) to deploy occupying American troops to stem a wave of looting that left the complete administrative, security, and even cultural infrastructure of Baghdad destroyed is now nearly legendary, as is Donald Rumsfeld's response to the looting at the time. ("Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here." To which he added, on the issue of the wholesale looting of Baghdad, "Stuff happens.") In New Orleans, the President never declared martial law while, for days, gangs of armed looters along with desperate individuals abandoned and in need of food and supplies of all kinds, roamed the city uncontested as buildings began to burn.

What, facing this crisis, did the Bush administration actually do? The two early, symbolic actions it took were typical. Neither would have a significant effect on the immediate situation at hand, but both forwarded long-term administration agendas that had little to do with Katrina or the crisis in the southeastern United States: First, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it was relaxing pollution standards on gasoline blends in order to counteract the energy crisis Katrina had immediately put on the table. This was, of course, but a small further step in the gutting of general environmental, clean air and pollution laws that strike hard at another kind of safety net -- the one protecting our planet. And second, its officials began to organize a major operation out of Northcom, Joint Task Force Katrina, to act as the military's on-scene command in "support" of an enfeebled FEMA. The U.S. Northern Command was set up by the Bush administration in 2002 and ever since has been prepared to take on ever larger, previously civilian tasks on our home continent. (As the Northcom site quotes the President as saying, "There is an overriding and urgent mission here in America today, and that's to protect our homeland. We have been called into action, and we've got to act.")

There were to be swift boats in the Gulf and Green Berets at the New Orleans airport, and yet Donald Rumsfeld's new, stripped-down, high-tech military either couldn't (or wouldn't) deploy any faster to New Orleans than it did to Baghdad, perhaps because it had already been so badly torn up and stressed out in Iraq (and had left most of its local "first responders" there).

5. Nation-building: As practically nobody remembers, George Bush in his first run for the presidency humbly eschewed the very idea of "nation-building" abroad. That was only until he sent the Pentagon blasting into Iraq. Over two years and endless billions of dollars later -- the Iraq War now being, on a monthly basis, more expensive than Vietnam -- the evidence of the administration's nation-building success in its "reconstruction" of Iraq is at hand for all to see. That country is now a catastrophe beyond imagining without repair in sight. (For Baghdad, think New Orleans without water, but with a full-scale insurgency.) So as the Pentagon ramps up in its ponderous manner to launch a campaign in the United States and as the Marines finally land in the streets of New Orleans, don't hold your breath about either the Pentagon's or the administration's nation-building skills in the U.S. (But count on "reconstruction" contracts going to Halliburton.) If Rumsfeld's Pentagon -- where so much of our money has gone in recent years -- turns out to be even a significant factor in the "reconstruction" of New Orleans, we'll never have that city back.

6. Predictions: Given the last two years in which the President as well as top administration officials have regularly insisted that we had reached the turning point, or turned that corner, or hit the necessary tipping point in Iraq, that success or progress or even victory was endlessly at hand (and then at hand again and then again), consider what we should think of the President's repeated statements of Katrina "confidence," his insistence that his administration can deal successfully with the hurricane's aftereffects and is capable of overseeing the successful rebuilding of New Orleans. ("All Americans can be certain our nation has the character, the resources, and the resolve to overcome this disaster. We will comfort and care for the victims. We will restore the towns and neighborhoods that have been lost in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. We'll rebuild the great city of New Orleans. And we'll once again show the world that the worst adversities bring out the best in America.")

Feral Continent?

As an aside, one great difference between the American public's experience of the Iraqi War and of the aftermath of Katrina shouldn't be overlooked. This time, our reporters weren't embedded with the troops, and so weren't experiencing mainly the administration's artificially-created version of reality. Instead, they made it to the distressed areas of the southeastern U.S. way ahead of the troops, remained in their absence, saw unreconstructed, unspun reality for themselves, and were generally outraged. So, for instance, when Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff made ridiculous claims about what the government had accomplished, reporters were able to say, emphatically, that his version was a lie and other Americans knew it was so, because they had seen it for themselves.

And don't even get me started on comparisons to Bush administration behavior from the moment, also in Crawford in August 2001, that the President and his advisors ignored the infamous CIA daily intelligence briefing on Osama bin Laden ("Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."), delivered at a length and with a simplicity that even George Bush should have been able to absorb. Speaking of déjà vu all over again, his recent behavior re: Katrina echoed strangely his 9/11 behavior. After all, on 9/11, he first sat paralyzed in a classroom in Florida, then boarded Air Force One and headed not for Washington but (gulp?) for Louisiana. It was an act of panic if not cowardice that was quickly covered over when he finally did make it to Washington and later New York City, talking tough and launching his war against Evil.

When Katrina hit, he sat in Crawford; then (perhaps -- to have a thoroughly unkind thought -- continuing his flight from Cindy Sheehan), he boarded his plane and headed in the wrong direction, for San Diego where he stood against the backdrop of an aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan (don't these people ever learn?), and pretended it was actually World War II and we were occupying Japan. By this time, every excuse for his war in Iraq having peeled away (the al-Qaeda connection, the wmds, even "freedom"), he finally arrived at a new explanation for why we were there. It was... oil -- or to be more exact, an oil fantasy. ("If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition.")

Maybe he should send David Kay, who headed his fruitless weapons-of-mass-destruction search team, back to Iraq to look for oil, since it's been in short supply there, and now is about to be here. Only then did our President get on a jet heading in the right direction -- towards Louisiana, where he had the pilot swoop down to 1,700 feet (as if that were something daring) for a close look -- on his way to Washington. Nobody in the administration, it seems, thought to put boot to the soil of Mississippi or Louisiana in the first crucial days of this crisis. (If you want the details -- Vice-President Cheney remained on vacation in Wyoming and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in New York buying shoes by the scads while offers of aid poured in from such disparate countries as Australia, Israel, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela -- check out Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times blast, United States of Shame.) The one constant of this President and his administration is that their most essential impulse is never to head for the frontlines themselves -- not in war, not in disaster, not for our safety or our planet's safety, not even on the campaign trail. They are invariably at the front of nowhere at all, and more than happy to be there. The old "chickenhawk" label has a deeper meaning than we ever realized.

In the meantime, what we know from Katrina is that, in George Bush's new America, we are no longer capable, as a civilian society, of rescuing ourselves. Even the more civilian part of our military is gone. The Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard, after all, are mainly in Iraq, feeling, I'm sure, mighty helpless right now, while chaos reigns in their home cities. Thank you, George. Mission Accomplished!

Before the Iraq War, it was already evident that the State Department -- the foreign policy equivalent of a civilian effort -- was atrophying. (Administration officials were, after all, starving that beast too.) "Diplomacy," such as it was, was being conducted with other nations ever more regularly by our military proconsuls like our Centcom commander in the Middle East on a military-to-military basis. A grim wag suggested to me recently that the only way New Orleans would have gotten some quick action was if the administration had renamed Katrina "Osama," claimed it left behind weapons of mass destruction (as it may, in fact, have), and then invaded the city.

When an administration which has long believed that the resort to force should be the initial impulse behind any policy finally acts, force is unsurprisingly all it knows. If what we've observed in the last week is the response of the Bush administration to an essentially predictable civilian catastrophe, then imagine how prepared it is, after these four years of "homeland security," for an unpredictable one. Or what about, for instance, just another massive hurricane in this age of Xtreme weather? After all, though you can't find a word in the papers about it at the moment, we are only halfway through the fiercest, longest hurricane season in memory. We should be scared. Very scared.

In the end, this country remains in a powerful state of denial on two major matters which help explain why the elevation of George Bush and his cronies was no mistake. We are now a highly militarized society in all sorts of ways that any of us could see, but that is seldom recognized or discussed (except when the threat of base closings sends specific communities into a panic). Unrecognized and unconsidered, the militarized nature of our society is likely in the future to prove both dangerous and highly destructive. Right now, we are a weakened superpower wired for force and force alone -- and if Iraq has shown us one thing, it's that, when it comes to solving human problems of any sort, military force is highly overrated.

And of course, we are as a society in denial over the toxic sludge pool where climate change (or global warming) meets Middle Eastern energy dependence. On this, our future rests. If someone doesn't get to the frontlines of planetary security soon, we may be living not just with one feral city, but on a feral continent, part of a feral world.

So, they were warned in September of 2004 and in August of 2005. Why would you assume the warning a year earlier was the only warning. Agenda?

Unfortunately, people ignore natural disaster warnings. Often with disasterous consequences. There are a few places where I would actually evacuate due to an approaching Hurricane. Galveston Island and New Orleans. (Those are just the two that I know of but similar areas would be treated the same.)

It is sad that the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana told the residents to evacuate without ensuring their homes would be safe from looters by calling in the National Guard.

Of course, even though they admitted in advance of Katrina that they could not help or afford such a disaster they refused help when the President offered. Is this indicative of the nature of a corrupt liberal government? Could be. In a city where the police are to be feared as much as the criminals and the government is even more corrupt it is at least to be expected.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
Hey expert idiot, haven't you seen this???

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976"> Governor Blanco asks President to Declare an Emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina
</a>

DATED AUGUST 27, 2005. WTF ELSE DID BUSH NEED? SOMEONE TO TAKE HIM BY THE HAND AND TELL HIM IT'S TIME TO END THE VACATION AND DO HIS FVCKING JOB???
<ahem>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5238307,00.html

Bush Declares Emergency in Louisiana

Sunday August 28, 2005 1:16 AM

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - President Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana on Saturday because of the approach of Hurricane Katrina and his spokesman urged residents along the coast to heed authorities' advice to evacuate.

Bush, vacationing at his ranch, was being regularly updated about the storm, which is expected to hit land early Monday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency continue to coordinate with state authorities in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, and have prepositioned supplies in areas expected to be affected, he said.

The president's emergency declaration authorizes the FEMA to coordinate all disaster relief efforts and to provide appropriate assistance in a number of Louisiana parishes, or counties.

Authorities told residents of low-lying coastal communities to head for higher ground. The storm was expected to strengthen as it crosses the Gulf of Mexico and could become a Category 4 hurricane with wind of at least 131 mph.

``We urge residents in the areas that could be impacted to follow the recommendations of local authorities,'' McClellan said.
Ignoring facts to go on another idiotic, all caps rant, BBond?
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: xaeniac
The state governor is the problem.. She did nothing


So if the governor drops the ball there is nothing the president can do about it.

By your logic the governor overrides the president.

The size of this disaster would require the federal goverment to step in it has done so in the past why not now ?

Please buy a vowel

Yes, the Governor overrides the President. There is no law that allows the President to invade a state unless the President is willing to declare Martial Law and at least temporarily overthrow the Governor.

It is interesting to see that Democrats are willing to do that. Whether it is with armed forces of the United States or the United Nations. That is good information for everyone to know.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Wait, President Bush declared it a Federal Emergency BEFORE the hurricane hit Lousiana? Fema and the National Guard were already there before hand?

President Bush publically asked the people of New Orleans to leave?

Yep, President Bush should have done more. Maybe he should have declared Marshall Law on Sunday and forced people to leave. Is that what President Clinton would have done?
The Gov. declared a state of emergency on Aug. 26. She asked for military assistance on Aug. 28. Gen. Honore said he was staged and ready and waiting on the word from the WH to go in.

That word didn't arrive until Thur.

Why?

Then that is the real problem. It seems liberals tend to believe only what the mainstream media show. Even when what is show is proven to be a lie liberals tend to think "fake but true."

WTF is that supposed to mean? You saying CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. were faking the video of tens of thousands of people trapped in the Superdome and the Conv. Ctr. with no food and water? That those air/water rescues were a Hollywood fabrication?


Why? I told you that I would be posting... read that post and you will know why.

Your last paragraph is an interesting attempt at shifting the subject. What you fail to examine is why help was delayed. There is no need for you to examine such issues since the mainstream media didn't deem such reasons important for you to know. Had you looked beyond the mainstream media then you would have found your own answer. Hence, what (typical language excluded) that is supposed to mean.
Nice of you to avoid answering any question posed of you. Instead you pull the typical apologist m.o. and divert.

As for MSM, I was watching local feeds from WWL and WDSU. They were taking reports from people experiencing the disaster, not from some editorial staff in NYC or Atlanta.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: KK

Well, it looks like the state/local plan was not anywhere it needed to be. What does funding a plan and the damn levies got to do with one another? So the city can't maintain a police force so thats a bush problem too. Why was there not enough security at the dome? Why was there not enough supplies at the dome? Let me guess, it's bush's fault. It's the same sh1t with you rabid bush haters.

Do you have any idea what F_E_M_A stands for???

As for Bush hating, I would expect EVERY American to hate ANYONE who has acted as criminally incompetent in a national emergency as Bush has. Wouldn't you?


How was President Bush criminally incompetent. By not invading Louisiana? Hmmm, ok. I thought you were against all invasions.

BTW, some in Louisiana don't agree with you. Even after Governor Blanco finally requested assistance (after spending days in meetings covering their ass) some of the people shot at the rescuers. Others were simply looting, including the police.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
From Conjur's link:

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.

HOW THE FVCK DOES ANYONE, EVEN YOU BLIND BUSH LOYALIST IDIOTS, POSSIBLY EXCUSE THIS???

I still don't understand, or perhaps it is you. Ignoring your gutter language. The President can not legally and ethically force the Governor of any state to call for assistance by the National Guard. The Governor requests then the President can issue the orders. The President tried before the hurricane hit to send help. The Governor refused.

Why are you ignoring these pesky facts?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
you guys are all.....funny.




[This post is an attempt to lighten up your fvcking mood.]

 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I got myself a hummer that's army spec and a 20 man river raft. I bought $100,000 in rations, a water purifying plant, 20,000 sand bags and now that bastard landlord wants the rent. It's a disaster. And while I was typing out this message my neighbor drowned. I'm so mad I could kill. Who oh who can I kill. All this pain,,,,,just give me somebody to kill.

Start with the Governor then work your way to the Mayor. But, why so violent?

BTW, why were you posting on a forum instead of helping your neighbor? Not very neighborly of you.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |