OT: Lootings, Carjackings, and shootings in New Orleans

Post by **Jared** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:34 pm

DivotMaker wrote: Utterly ridiculous comment based on speculative news reports that are obviously anti-Bush. For you to suggest that Bush was not in almost constant contact with FEMA since before the storm hit and afterwards is pretty disingenuous, IMHO. It is one thing to dislike or hate Bush, it is another thing to assume he did not care about this disaster.

I can't make any claims about whether Bush cared or didn't care about the disaster. But when he goes on national television and says "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees", then that shows that either he wasn't in constant contact with FEMA, FEMA wasn't telling him anything of importance, or he just ignored the clear warnings that something like this WOULD happen. Again....it seems like every other post that is in defense of the administration pulls out the "anti-Bush" bull. His administration screwed up. And criticizing it isn't anti-Bush...it's common sense.

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:21 pm

You know, I still think pointing fingers at this point is counter productive. Unfortunately, so is allowing Bush to speak. Here are some excerpts from a storyon cnn.com.

Bush was resolute and sobering during his remarks, but he smiled when he commented on the people of the region, which he visited Friday.

"When you talk to the proud folks in the area, you see a spirit that cannot be broken," he said.

Does he just pull s*** out of his ass and throw it up like it's meaningful. I don't know what his defeinition of someone's spirit being broken is, but I think we have seen countless examples of just that on the news. f***in, smirking, son of a b*tch.

"I'm not going to forget what I've seen," the president said in New Orleans as he ended his tour Friday. "I understand the devastation requires more than one day's attention."

Uh, no s***, Sherlock!!! I'm glad your finally "tuned in" to WTF is going on down there, almost a f***in week later.

"He heard some things he didn't want to believe at first," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana. "The president is starting to grasp the magnitude of the situation."

Four days after Katrina killed hundreds if not thousands, Republicans joined Democrats in shaking their heads.

"If we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican.

It's apparent Bush was the model for the boss in "The Office". I cannot imagine having to have a discussion with him over something as important as this. If the scenes of the disorder in New Orleans was not embarrassing enough for our country, we now have to have this ass munch making us look like even bigger dolts?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:50 pm

Jared wrote:I really have no idea how "the majority of the f-ups rest on the shoulders of the state and local authorities" when the resources in the state and local regions (N.O., for example) have been decimated. How is the mayor of N.O. going to mount a completely effective response to the hurricane/flood when 80% of his city is underwater and thousands are dead? He's going to need help from the federal gov't. And that's what the federal gov't is there for. From the Dept of Homeland Security website:

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

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.
It's the responsiblity of the federal government, and it makes sense. Local gov't can only do so much in major catastrophes.

Jared,

Primarily because the most important screw up was Blanco's delinquent activation of the LA nat'l guard. She should have done it before the storm hit, and I've seen more than a handful of governors state that that would be SOP in their administrations. Then she compounded her problem by failing to take advantage of the pause between H-day and the levy breaches. She didn't fully mobilize the LA national guard until after the levies had begun to fail, at which time the complications of deteriorating CC&C and the built-in mobilization delay condemned New Orleans to several days of anarchy.

The passage you cited is nice as an organizational framework, but there is no legal basis for DHS, DoD or any federal agency to put boots on the ground outside a federal base or U.S. territory without the permission (and in pratical fact the request of) the local governor.

Look, this tragedy has obviously been compounded by failures to some extent at nearly every level. But the more I research and the more info I find, the more I see finger after finger pointing at Blanco.

My distaste for the mayor is based on two different grounds. First, he waited 12 hours while the "voluntary" evac took place before ordering everyone out. This despite, as the pundits are running out of breath repeating, EVERYONE knew the levies were gonna break. Furthermore his rhetoric and "leadership" style since the s*** hit the fan has been laughable. His cycle of condemn, apologize, retreat has been about as productive as tits on a bull.

Post by **Jared** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:25 pm

RobVarak wrote: Primarily because the most important screw up was Blanco's delinquent activation of the LA nat'l guard. She should have done it before the storm hit, and I've seen more than a handful of governors state that that would be SOP in their administrations. Then she compounded her problem by failing to take advantage of the pause between H-day and the levy breaches. She didn't fully mobilize the LA national guard until after the levies had begun to fail, at which time the complications of deteriorating CC&C and the built-in mobilization delay condemned New Orleans to several days of anarchy.

She activate national guard before the hurricane? The Superdome was staffed entirely by members of the LA nat'l guard. And news reports show that 3,500 Louisiana Nat'l Guard members were called up as of Monday, with 3,000 on standby and 3,000 in Iraq. Maybe all 6500 could have been called up...but that's likely not enough troops for the entire state, never mind a flooded New Orleans. And reports are saying that the governor made requests for Nat'l Guard troops from other states on Sunday...and that the necessary paperwork didn't come from Washington until Thursday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/s ... 57,00.html

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.

I don't know how true this is and who's at fault (Did Louisiana's request get lost in the mail? Did they forget to sign somewhere? Did Washington act slowly?). But this shows the governor requesting out of state troops before reports of the levee breaking.

The passage you cited is nice as an organizational framework, but there is no legal basis for DHS, DoD or any federal agency to put boots on the ground outside a federal base or U.S. territory without the permission (and in pratical fact the request of) the local governor.

That's wrong. From the Louisiana State Constitution:

http://senate.legis.state.la.us/Documen ... ticle4.htm

Article IV, Sec. 5 (J) Commander-in-Chief: "The governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state, except when they are called into service of the federal government. He may call out these forces to preserve law and order, to suppress insurrection, to repel invasion, or in other times of emergency."

My distaste for the mayor is based on two different grounds. First, he waited 12 hours while the "voluntary" evac took place before ordering everyone out. This despite, as the pundits are running out of breath repeating, EVERYONE knew the levies were gonna break. Furthermore his rhetoric and "leadership" style since the s*** hit the fan has been laughable. His cycle of condemn, apologize, retreat has been about as productive as tits on a bull.

I actually think he should have ordered the mandatory evac a little earlier, although this wouldn't have made a huge difference (since I'm pretty sure he couldn't legally force people out of their homes with the mandatory evac). And the pundits aren't saying that everyone KNEW the levies were going to break. They are (correctly) saying that everyone knew that this was a serious possibility, and because of that, there should as many resources as possible available to save the city if something like this happened. And you may not like it, but the federal gov't was doing virtually NOTHING and he called them on it. You might not like that, but his tirades brought added attention to the severity of the situation. I can't judge how well he's leading the city inside the city, but his condemnations have helped underscore just how bad the situation was. Much better than a President that didn't anticipate a levee break.

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:33 pm

"I read the paper every single day since this has happened. That hasn't made me any more capable to support this effort. I really don't know where some of you get this nonsense that this process is all "so easy anyone can do it". If it IS so easy, run for election and show everyone how YOU can make the difference."

Bush can go and do interviews and act like this was another 9/11, but maybe that's your problem? "I read the paper every single day SINCE this has happened"....You should've read the papers BEFORE this happened. Last time I checked everyone knew this was going to happen, we have technology and weathermen that do a pretty good job. Everything that took place today, could have taken place DAYS ago with a competent leader. Which is why, John Kerry (or insert random name) would've done a better job.

"Utterly ridiculous comment based on speculative news reports that are obviously anti-Bush. For you to suggest that Bush was not in almost constant contact with FEMA since before the storm hit and afterwards is pretty disingenuous, IMHO. It is one thing to dislike or hate Bush, it is another thing to assume he did not care about this disaster."

Bush's record speaks for itself, just go back to his days as a governor ...one does not have to assume much, and I wasn't joking...Like you said the ranch is perfectly fine for handling important matters, he could of easily stayed there and done a great job....Oh, and that's what he did for a little while. Dick Cheney and Condi Rice followed his lead.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:50 pm

TheHiddenTrack wrote: You should've read the papers BEFORE this happened.

I did, so what is your point? Seems you are looking for a pissing match.

TheHiddenTrack wrote:Last time I checked everyone knew this was going to happen, we have technology and weathermen that do a pretty good job.

Excuse me? EVERYONE knew that the levees in N.O. were going to fail? EVERYONE knew that hundreds of thousands of NO residents chose NOT to leave or could not leave? EVERYONE knew that Katrina would destroy an area of over 90,000 square MILES? Um, Nostradamus you are not and you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who could have knowledgeably predicted what has transpired.

TheHiddenTrack wrote:Everything that took place today, could have taken place DAYS ago with a competent leader. Which is why, John Kerry (or insert random name) would've done a better job.

You are either incredibly naive or you hate Bush so much that it has irrevocably tainted your objectivity. Kerry or any other President would have had to deal with the exact same issues and bureacracy. If it makes you sleep better at night thinking your little Johnny would have done a better job, I truly feel for you.

TheHiddenTrack wrote:Bush's record speaks for itself, just go back to his days as a governor ...one does not have to assume much, and I wasn't joking...

It is too bad that most people can't take a word you say seriously. You are so jaded against Bush it is really comical.

TheHiddenTrack wrote:Like you said the ranch is perfectly fine for handling important matters, he could of easily stayed there and done a great job....Oh, and that's what he did for a little while. Dick Cheney and Condi Rice followed his lead.

If you were with Bush and know every detail of what he did from the day the storm hit, then fine. You are free to think what you wish, but I doubt that many reasonable and objective people will subscribe to your slanderous and misinformative innuendo. Don't confuse partisan anti-Bush press reports with the facts.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:00 am

DivotMaker wrote:Excuse me? EVERYONE knew that the levees in N.O. were going to fail? EVERYONE knew that hundreds of thousands of NO residents chose NOT to leave or could not leave? EVERYONE knew that Katrina would destroy an area of over 90,000 square MILES? Um, Nostradamus you are not and you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who could have knowledgeably predicted what has transpired.

Ahh...see that's where you and a bunch of other people are wrong. I forget the guys name, but he wrote a three part story in 2001 or 2002 about the levee system in NO, and what would happen if they didn't retrofit them to withstand the Cat 5 hurricanes. Basically the guy was 100% right in all of his predictions. Sure, you cannot predict the hostility and violence that has occured, but everything from an infrastructure standpoint has been predicted. The story re-ran in the LA times on Wednesday morning. I'd link it, but I can't find it on the site anymore. But look it up...virtually everything the guy predicted came true.

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:03 am

I can't find one article that I read, but this I had in my favorites and I don't have time to find the other article.

I'm very busy at the moment, so I'll just leave you with this I read on 8/28/05:

Quote from the National Weather Service, New Orleans:

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

HURRICANE Katrina...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED
STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.

MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT
LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL
FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.

THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL.
PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD
FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE
BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME
WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.

HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A
FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.

AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH
AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY
VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE
ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE
WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.

POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN
AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW
CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE
KILLED.

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:03 am

dbdynsty25 wrote:
DivotMaker wrote:Excuse me? EVERYONE knew that the levees in N.O. were going to fail? EVERYONE knew that hundreds of thousands of NO residents chose NOT to leave or could not leave? EVERYONE knew that Katrina would destroy an area of over 90,000 square MILES? Um, Nostradamus you are not and you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who could have knowledgeably predicted what has transpired.
Ahh...see that's where you and a bunch of other people are wrong. I forget the guys name, but he wrote a three part story in 2001 or 2002 about the levee system in NO, and what would happen if they didn't retrofit them to withstand the Cat 5 hurricanes. Basically the guy was 100% right in all of his predictions. Sure, you cannot predict the hostility and violence that has occured, but everything from an infrastructure standpoint has been predicted. The story re-ran in the LA times on Wednesday morning. I'd link it, but I can't find it on the site anymore. But look it up...virtually everything the guy predicted came true.

Exactly. Divot acts like this was just some random location on a map that just showed up without prior history.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:43 am

dbdynsty25 wrote:
Ahh...see that's where you and a bunch of other people are wrong. I forget the guys name, but he wrote a three part story in 2001 or 2002 about the levee system in NO, and what would happen if they didn't retrofit them to withstand the Cat 5 hurricanes. Basically the guy was 100% right in all of his predictions. Sure, you cannot predict the hostility and violence that has occured, but everything from an infrastructure standpoint has been predicted. The story re-ran in the LA times on Wednesday morning. I'd link it, but I can't find it on the site anymore. But look it up...virtually everything the guy predicted came true.

I know all about the studies and the warnings. However, how many times have predictions been wrong? Many more times they are wrong (thankfully) than not. It is a catch 22 situation though that many are simply dismissing from a Monday morning quarterback perspective. If the decision to fix those levees WAS MADE, what services or other budgetary items would be axed to pay for the levee improvements? Do you think the people of NO would have voted to fix the levees in turn reducing or eliminating social and public services and projects? It is real easy to sit here in the aftermath and blame people for inaction AFTER the fact when likely they would still have chosen not to fund the levee work anyway. NOW, AFTER THIS HAS HAPPENED, you have people climbing out of the woodwork claiming this and that. Very convenient given the circumstances.....

BTW, I lived in NO for a year when I played for the Saints and I never heard a single news report or conversation about the levee system.....

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:43 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote:
Exactly. Divot acts like this was just some random location on a map that just showed up without prior history.

Nope, nice try....

I used to live there so I think I have a bit of perspective on the situation.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:46 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote:
HURRICANE Katrina...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED
STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.

Yet Camille nor any other hurricane caused the levees to fail. This one did. End of story.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:11 am

Jared,

Just like you to quote something from the Guardian

But that article actually reinforces what I stated about the practical realities of the feds taking command and control of guard units. The LA const. provision you quoted is standard in virtually every state constitution, and I did overstate when I said no legal basis. Of course I am aware that NG can be federalized, but it doesn't happen unilaterally in domestic settings. 9/11 is the sole exception that I can think of. I really was focusing on the fact that, as I said, traditionally and practically the governor is the one calling the shots. And the AP report supporrts that fact.

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.

And this point is driven home even further in these portions of the story:

``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.

If Bush had unilaterally (cough) declared a national security emergency and exercised his power to federalize the NG, in direct abrogation of federal tradition, this would have had roughly the same effect to his critics as Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus. The would be swinging from the rafters in Congress about "power grabs" and abandonment of state sovereignty and W's penchant for rash action.

Blanco should have anticipated, based on the widely known repercussions of a levy breach, that she would need the whole of the Guard as well as out of state Guard help. Since they were aware of the effects of a levy break on NO, she should have known that a substantial part of the police force would be cut off or rendered ineffective for lack of communications and access etc. I haven't seen any reports which indicate that she did anything other than token activation of the guard for things like security at the dome.

As the article points out (including snide Iraq remark)

With many states' Guard units depleted by deployments to Iraq, Katrina's aftermath was almost certain from the beginning to require help from faraway states.

I don't see anything in this article or anywhere else that I've been able to review which indicates that Blanco, the key figure on the ground, reacted in a manner consistent with the fear that the levy system might fail. As much as people might want Bush to have seized more control for the feds, it just was not a practical option.

You indicated that Blanco requested external help on Sunday, but the only reference to a timeline for any of her actions is Bill Richardson's statement that he offered NM's guardsmen on Sunday. There is nothing in the article which says that she made the requests. In fact, the only request we know she made was on Wednesday to the MI national guard.

Here's what else we do know.

As of H-Day she had half of her available guardsmen inactive, albeit on standby, despite the fact that there was a very good chance that a Cat 4 was going to hit or near-miss New Orleans.

I just fail to see how, given the balance of the respective powers, responsibilities and authority of the state and federal governments, people can lay more blame on Uncle Sam's doorstep than on the shoulders of the Governor. Does not compute.

On a purely political note, the semi-moronic debate about Kerry's ability/inability to have handled this is enlightening in one respect. If you didn't have a Left that was hungrier for W's blood than a great white on a vegitarian diet, you would see much more balanced analysis of the federal government's response. We've clearly reached the mirror image of the point in the Clinton administration where the Right was so retarded by its fixations on Whitewater and Monica that it was unable to conduct an intelligent debate about anything.

I really think that the discussions about Bush personally, along with the discussion of race, are detracting from meaningful analysis and debate about what went wrong. Jared, at least you and I are having the right argument, I think

Post by **Jared** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:44 am

I think the big thing here will be to see when Blanco requested out of state troops. There are reports saying that she requested 40,000 troops early in the week...but I haven't been able to find any confirmation of this or not. There's definitely evidence of Blanco making at least one out-of-state request on Sunday (to New Mexico), so I'm fairly sure that she made these requests early. Now I agree...an important question is finding out how many troops she asked for and if there was any delay. The 3,000 Louisiana troops that weren't called up (we don't know why) aren't the big issue (if it were, then you should also be complaining about Bush having members of the Louisiana national guard in Iraq, since there are over 3,000 troops there). If she didn't make any big requests early (i.e. Monday), then she's partly to blame for the security issue. I think this is something that Congress is investigating, and I'll be looking forward to see the articles on this.

Also, Bush could have requested federal troops (as long as they're not involved in law enforcement), and did so.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12555525.htm

Considering the magnitude of the situation (and the fact that not much was happening troop-wise until Friday), he could have easily requested them earlier. Why wait until Saturday, especially if he's monitoring the situation and seeing how there aren't enough Nat'l Guard troops? Why wait for a request while people are dying? That does not compute.

And all of the troop discussion completely ignores the role of FEMA in all this, which has been horrific. FEMA, who heads the federal response to disasters, has been absolutely pathetic. And FEMA is part of the federal government. If FEMA screws up, then yes, the blame is on the federal government. And I really don't know how anyone can defend FEMA's response in the first 96 hours of the crisis.

As for the Kerry thing, I don't think this is an issue about the left being hungry for Bush's blood. TONS of conservatives are slamming his response, and (again) when the President says stuff like "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees", that shows him to be completely out of touch with the situation. For someone to be the President and say that shows that he wasn't on top of things. I'd be pissed off if ANY president said that and any FEMA bungled things the way they're being bungled. (And by the way, the Clinton administration hired James Lee Witt as head of FEMA, someone with experience in emergency management. Bush hired the college roommate of the previous FEMA head, someone who had no experience in disaster management and was previously pushed out as head of the International Arabian Horse Association (link).) And the stakes of the mistakes are so high (potentially hundreds of extra deaths) that people will be pissed off about the situation, and think that just about anyone could have done a better job. It might be hyperbole, but it's understandable given the way Bush has handled things.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:14 am

That works on both sides of the aisle. I have yet to see Blueduke offer a single valid REALISTIC solution, yet he continues to attack the Mayor.

Don't cities plan for for emergency evacuations before disasters become a reality? You know they do. What was predicted would happen if the storm hit happened. What was the mayor's "plan"? Evidently it was to sit back and let the Feds figure it out. he knew after the voluntary evac alot of people with no transportation was left behind. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who those people were---the poor and the elderly. He could have at least make an attempt to get them out. There were plenty of buses around to do just that. and it's real simple, BD----you open the door, sit in the driver's seat, and drive to the low income neighborhoods. I'm sure he knows where they are as they always seem to find transportation for them on election day so a shortage of drivers wouldn't be a problem either. He did nothing. What would Mayor BD do if you knew a hurricane was predicted to likely decimate your city if it hit and you knew the poor and the elderly didn't have a way out? I would hope you would at least try to get them out before it hit. I know I would.

The mayor choked, the governor choked even more, and Bush choked most of all (and he and the republicans will pay a huge price as they well should. Now if this flies over your head, it just does.

Something to ponder.......given HSA is a total joke and we have our hands full with the Katrina aftermath, would a terrorist hell bent on laying a severe blow to America think now is the perfect time to do it?

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:16 am

Factcheck.org's take on Bush, NO flooding, levees:

http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

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.

The GOP is going to take a deserved hit come election time

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:25 am

Jared wrote:I think the big thing here will be to see when Blanco requested out of state troops. There are reports saying that she requested 40,000 troops early in the week...but I haven't been able to find any confirmation of this or not. There's definitely evidence of Blanco making at least one out-of-state request on Sunday (to New Mexico), so I'm fairly sure that she made these requests early. Now I agree...an important question is finding out how many troops she asked for and if there was any delay. The 3,000 Louisiana troops that weren't called up (we don't know why) aren't the big issue (if it were, then you should also be complaining about Bush having members of the Louisiana national guard in Iraq, since there are over 3,000 troops there). If she didn't make any big requests early (i.e. Monday), then she's partly to blame for the security issue. I think this is something that Congress is investigating, and I'll be looking forward to see the articles on this.

Also, Bush could have requested federal troops (as long as they're not involved in law enforcement), and did so.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12555525.htm

Considering the magnitude of the situation (and the fact that not much was happening troop-wise until Friday), he could have easily requested them earlier. Why wait until Saturday, especially if he's monitoring the situation and seeing how there aren't enough Nat'l Guard troops? Why wait for a request while people are dying? That does not compute.

And all of the troop discussion completely ignores the role of FEMA in all this, which has been horrific. FEMA, who heads the federal response to disasters, has been absolutely pathetic. And FEMA is part of the federal government. If FEMA screws up, then yes, the blame is on the federal government. And I really don't know how anyone can defend FEMA's response in the first 96 hours of the crisis.

As for the Kerry thing, I don't think this is an issue about the left being hungry for Bush's blood. TONS of conservatives are slamming his response, and (again) when the President says stuff like "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees", that shows him to be completely out of touch with the situation. For someone to be the President and say that shows that he wasn't on top of things. I'd be pissed off if ANY president said that and any FEMA bungled things the way they're being bungled. (And by the way, the Clinton administration hired James Lee Witt as head of FEMA, someone with experience in emergency management. Bush hired the college roommate of the previous FEMA head, someone who had no experience in disaster management and was previously pushed out as head of the International Arabian Horse Association (link).) And the stakes of the mistakes are so high (potentially hundreds of extra deaths) that people will be pissed off about the situation, and think that just about anyone could have done a better job. It might be hyperbole, but it's understandable given the way Bush has handled things.

1. First, could you please push me in the direction of the quote where W said that nobody anticipated the levies failing? I've just reviewed both of his lengthier statements to the public (the Rose garden and his post-tour news conference) and a few of his shorter statements and I dont' see anything to that effect. I'm not saying it's not there, as I have heard Cherthoff say similar things.

2. There's a huge and obvious difference between the troops which were unavailable for duty because they were already deployed overseas and those who were not deployed because they were left on standby by the governor. There's no reason that one can't be troubled by one but not the other.

3. I find it ironic that for the entirety of its short history FEMA was viewed by the ACLU set and tin-hat wearing public as a uber-powerful shadow-agency with neafarious purpose. Now it's being criticized because people realize there were very real and necessary legal limits to its power. FEMA typically waits for a request for help from the state government, and as you noted, as a federal agency is limited in its ability to direct national guardsmen etc.

4. Jared, you're a smart, smart man. And despite our repeated clashses I don't think that you would place undue blame on Bush or anyone else unless you believed that's where it belonged. But you can't possibly believe that an enormous component of this criticism isn't driven by lingering general anti-Bush sentiment, especially from the Fahrenheit kool aid consuming crowd. Even the rational left is desperately hungry to nail Bush since the election, and the less rational left is just thrilled to have a new dress in which to doll up its anti-Iraq criticism. Hell, now they can bash Bush without having to face the reality of their defeatism

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:29 am

Nevermind...

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:38 am

Evidence that Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum may never have even ordered the evac without prompting from the Feds.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana ... =louisiana

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:41 am

blueduke wrote: The mayor choked, the governor choked even more, and Bush choked most of all (and he and the republicans will pay a huge price as they well should. Now if this flies over your head, it just does.

I got it...They should all be beaten... but shouldnt we wait til after everyone is safe before we play monday morning qb?...

Thats been My main frustration. With so much to be done and with all the human misery cant these personal agendas wait???
Dress em up anyway you want but thats how I see em...

As silly as the political "discussions" get..This one just blows my mind..

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:56 am

XXXIV wrote:I got it...They should all be beaten... but shouldnt we wait til after everyone is safe before we play monday morning qb?...

Thats been My main frustration. With so much to be done and with all the human misery cant these personal agendas wait???
Dress em up anyway you want but thats how I see em...

As silly as the political "discussions" get..This one just blows my mind..

What blows my mind is the chorus of people who feel that there's a need to wait before analyzing what happened. Thank God most of us here, and most of us doing the discussing, are safe and sound. Many of us have contributed to the relief effort and will continue to do so. There's no reason that we can't have a lively discussion of the political and governmental screwups while relief efforts continue, particularly as they might have some bearing on the ongoing efforts. I think we can all manage to walk and chew gum at the same time here.

As for the issues on the table, a new WaPo article with some interesting facts and examines more of the sausage-factory elements of federalism:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01680.html

Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.

A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.

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.

FWIW, it seems that the buck-passing struggle is on in earnest, but I did not arrive at my position regarding the proportionate share of the blame after receipt of a Rove-scribed diktat.

I was in MI for the week with limited net access, so I arrived at my position by good old fashioned observation.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:05 am

I got it...They should all be beaten... but shouldnt we wait til after everyone is safe before we play monday morning qb?...

We're just guys on a videogame message board. Now if we were columnists, newscasters, or politicans I'd say yes. At the very least they should act like they're on the same page even if they are or not.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:16 am

RobVarak wrote: What blows my mind is the chorus of people who feel that there's a need to wait before analyzing what happened. Thank God most of us here, and most of us doing the discussing, are safe and sound. Many of us have contributed to the relief effort and will continue to do so. There's no reason that we can't have a lively discussion of the political and governmental screwups while relief efforts continue, particularly as they might have some bearing on the ongoing efforts. I think we can all manage to walk and chew gum at the same time here.

I stand corrected. Again..and Im sure this trend will continue.

My Problem is everyone is not Jared and everyone is not Rob. There are alot of XXXIVs who just post to here themselves talk. Now maybe Im far ahead of Myself but I just always see this discussions turn to mush.

Carry on..and pardon the interruption.

ProvoAnC · Post by **ProvoAnC** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:46 am

XXXIV wrote:

I stand corrected. Again..and Im sure this trend will continue.

My Problem is everyone is not Jared and everyone is not Rob. There are alot of XXXIVs who just post to here themselves talk. Now maybe Im far ahead of Myself but I just always see this discussions turn to mush.

Carry on..and pardon the interruption.

you mean my dad's better than your dad?

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:47 am

RobVarak wrote:
1. First, could you please push me in the direction of the quote where W said that nobody anticipated the levies failing? I've just reviewed both of his lengthier statements to the public (the Rose garden and his post-tour news conference) and a few of his shorter statements and I dont' see anything to that effect. I'm not saying it's not there, as I have heard Cherthoff say similar things.

The post right above you from "my boy blue" had a link to this

http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

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.