PeterDavid.net

What is going on reminds me a bit of "Deny everything". That is the game that is going on, but it is of course not a fun game. One pushes the blame to the other and at the end everyone more or less says that they all did the best they could.

I am living in Britain and I don`t know the fineries of US politics here. But some of what I have seen is just common sense: Maybe people couldn`t have been evacuated sooner but nobody can tell me that even immediately afterwards there was no one who could have dropped urgent supplies like food, water, baby milk powder and maybe even some medical supplies. And locking up a large number of people in a dark stadium and kind of throw away the key for days without food or water is of course a recipe for disaster.

I have seen pictures that made me sick and very angry.

What was needed is leadership. Someone who stands up immediately and gets things done. Not buerocrats who wait for orders and instructions, who don`t move until it is too late for the most vulnerable.

Bush certainly didn`t show leadership here. But what first of all counts is, what were the people who run the local government doing? The local police, the army? I was annoyed at pictures of people driving around in cars investigating but nobody stopped and took at least some of these desperate people out.
I heard that one policeman even pointed a gun at a woman who wanted to get in his car.

Bush is certainly to blame. But he is not the only one.

The main thing is, get these people out, look after them - and learn lessons from this chaos. Because unfortunately the weather is getting more and more violent and unpredictable. More disasters will come.

Their is plenty of blame to go around. The local government wasn't prepared, the state government wasn't prepared, and the federal government didn't react soon enough when the other two levels of government didn't respond quickly enough.

Considering that one of the first things out of the mouths of the Mayor of NO and the Govenor of the state was to blame the feds and especially Bush, I would say that the President is reacting defensively. He could have come out and asked the Mayor why he didn't use the available transportation to start moving people out, or the Gov. why she didn't request federal assistance sooner.

Peter,

While I have no love of President Bush or his policies, I think you've failed to cast a wide-enough net on who's playing the "blame game." From what I've seen (on both the right and left), nearly everyone is playing some form of it. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco blame Bush, or FEMA chairman Brown; the congressional Black caucus blames Bush and FEMA; the Red Cross is blaming Blanco for blocking attempts at rescue; right-wing bloggers are blaming Nagin for failure to implement a coherent evacuation plan and for not using buses to evacuate those unable to... And I could go on and on. And at this point in the recovery process, it makes me nauseated to see it, regardless of which political stripe is doing the blaming.

This is all part of human nature, and never more so than now; we want to find someone at fault, and we want to deflect fault away from ourselves. I think that's why we are so impressed when someone actually stands up and accepts responsibility for their mistakes.

Now, if you ask me who's to blame? I start with Katrina, work my way through the very many people at various government levels who so ineptly dealt with the disaster and its aftermath, and go back to the people who decided to build a city below sea level in a known hurricane zone and then proceeded to destroy nearly all of the natural barriers to preventing said hurricanes from causing such catastrophic damage. Bush is in there somewhere, but he's far from the only target.

And now, I have to suppress a shudder after defending the President (even a little).

Here's the thing I see. Right now, the New Orleans mayor and Louisiana governor should pretty much be totally occupied with doing whatever they can, administratively and personally, to help. Their moment of responsibility will come during the next round of local and state elections, when the voters will be able to decide whether they should be held accountable for lapses in duty.

Bush won't face any such moment. He's a lame duck, with no future check on his actions. I was watching CNN the other night, and for a moment, I thought I was watching the Daily Show, when they edit an Administration press conference to string all the soundbites of Blame Game together to emphasize how often they use this tactic.

I totally agree with PAD. If our Federal Government isn't competent enough to run a relief and rebuilding effort while simultaneously investigating whether there was any negligence on behalf of anyone, then we should just trash the entire government and start over. How is it possible that they can wage a war half a world away, yet not be able to conduct an investigation into this event while the facts are still fresh? Our maybe our government has the administrative equivilent of the inability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Here's another irritating thing: It took many governmental officials, GOP and Democratic alike, several days to come off of vacation, not just Bush. Another failure of leadership. However, Renquist's body was hardly cold before Bush was up there nominating him for the position of Chief Justice. If Bush had acted half as quickly last week, there's a good chance that the casualties might only be in the hundreds, rather than in the thousands.

And that isn't a knock on Roberts. He's got a lot of precedent behind him to both be a good associate Supreme Justice, as well as Chief Justice someday.

"One thing guaranteed, though: They'll try to find a way to blame it on Clinton. But Clinton shouldn't take it personally. It's all part of the game."

It's funny you should say that...because I've already seen some anti-Clinton sniping on a few conservative Web sites. One, in particular, said (sic), "The people of New Orleans should be thanking Mr. Bush! If Clinton had gotten his way and had all his health care initiatives passed, they'd be worse off than they are now! And they'd better hope Hillary Clinton doesn't get elected someday, or they won't have any health care!"

***sigh***

There's more than enough blame to go around, but I have no confidence that partisans on either side will do anything BUT blame. Why should they? It's too easy to blame the other guy and make political hay then solve problems.

I'm gonna repeat this, because I think it's a useful post for this topic:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/09/04/katrina-response-timeline/

http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

Two sites with timelines for events that happened (or, at least, PROMISED to happen).

I was watching a clip with George and Barbara Bush being interviewed the other day, and George Sr. used the phrase 'blame game' just after I had heard from two or three White House functionaries. I couldn't help thinking just before the interview, when one of the president's people prepped Bush's parents with the key talking points, including 'blame game,' that just before the interview began, Bush Sr. turned to his wife and said, 'You see Barbara, I told you we should have put Jeb forward, not Junior!'

And regarding the blame game, here are my predictions for the next few months:
1. Nobody gets fired.
2. Brownie gets a medal or award of some kind, a la George Tennant
3. Cheney's face cracks right down the middle as he tries to smile, demonstrating his compassionate conservatism to survivors on the ground. When the endoskeleton underneath is revealed, it finally confirms what we already knew, that the vice president is in fact an android.

Okay, maybe not #3.

This past weekend, I watched an old Sesame Street tape with my nieces called "Elmopalooza." In it, John Stewart spends most of the show trapped in his dressing room as a parade of muppets and celebrity guests tried unsuccessfully to break down the door. Finally, someone turns to Oscar the Grouch, who says, "Sure, I can get it open." When asked why didn't do anything sooner, his repply is "You didn't ask."

What does have to do with this topic? Well, "you didn't ask" is now FEMA's primary excuse for why they didn't respond sooner rather than later. While I agree that there was a complete breakdown on the city and state level, for FEMA to use this weak excuse for not coming to the aid of New Orleans is just ludicrous. The country was facing the worst natural disaster in recent memory and they're hung up on protocol.

Bush's call not to play the "blame game" while "Brownie" and Chertoff are pointing fingers at state and local officials is SOP for this administration. This is the same crew that decries the "politics of personal destruction" while smearing their enemies at the drop of the hat.

Perhaps after nearly five years, we shouldn't be surprised at this, but don't we as voters and taxpayers deserve better Oscar the Grouch as president?

This past weekend, I watched an old Sesame Street tape with my nieces called "Elmopalooza." In it, John Stewart spends most of the show trapped in his dressing room as a parade of muppets and celebrity guests tried unsuccessfully to break down the door. Finally, someone turns to Oscar the Grouch, who says, "Sure, I can get it open." When asked why didn't do anything sooner, his repply is "You didn't ask."

What does have to do with this topic? Well, "you didn't ask" is now FEMA's primary excuse for why they didn't respond sooner rather than later. While I agree that there was a complete breakdown on the city and state level, for FEMA to use this weak excuse for not coming to the aid of New Orleans is just ludicrous. The country was facing the worst natural disaster in recent memory and they're hung up on protocol.

Apparently, that's only the first part of FEMA protocol; if you DO ask, they'll say "If you want our help, we have to be in charge."

I don’t know Peter, I am of the line of thinking that problem falls highly in the local and state government. I feel the current U.S. government had a mayor fault for not seeing that the local and state was incompetent.

What got to me was that the New Orleans Mayor when he was asked when did he call for help. He admits he only called people after the hurricane hit. When asked what his plan was, he said it was to put people in the Superdome and Convention Center and wait for help. "I called everybody the day after the storm."

The possibility of a hurricane hitting New Orleans is not new. This very last semester I took a Meteorology class and when we touch over this same subject (hurricanes) the false sense of security that New Orleans had was a main topic. We talked about how horrible it would be for them to be hit by a hurricane of 3.5 or more. Here is an eerie article it’s a few months old (hence why is creepy)

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/22040b4511b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

But, yes, this is the lesson we've learned from all this and that one is one the Bush administration has to eat and fix.

Maq

All, here's a useful timeline to better review the response of all levels of government. Yes, it's a right wing blog, but the primary source is the Times-Picayune.

I've seen plenty of "blame" to go around: The city for not implementing its own disaster plan, the state for not requesting federal help sooner (and in some cases turning it away), the feds for having too much bureaucracy and paperwork getting in the way of deployment orders.

I found a link yesterday (that I can't find now unfortunately) where former Secretary Tom Ridge had once advised people keep a minimum three-day supply of food/water because it would take that long for federal help to become really engaged. He was panned for it at the time (this was the "duct tape" incident), but it looks like he was proved right - it took four.

Where do I have the most questions? At the state level. Yes, New Orleans didn't really have things in place for evacuation, but the state is the first major level of response. Blanco has seemed to delay at several junctures - taking 24 hours to make decisions, worrying about political implications of those decisions, etc.

I still have problems with the federal allocation of resources: firemen in Atlanta being told they were to distribute flyers. What a joke. But Blanco is who I've got the most questions for.

Forgot to post the link I wanted, and it looks like Robert beat me to the post while I was typing:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/09/04/katrina-response-timeline/

I found a link yesterday (that I can't find now unfortunately) where former Secretary Tom Ridge had once advised people keep a minimum three-day supply of food/water because it would take that long for federal help to become really engaged. He was panned for it at the time (this was the "duct tape" incident), but it looks like he was proved right - it took four.

Funny thing about Ridge. When he was governor of PA, the northeast was hit by the blizzard of 93, then dubbed the "Storm of the Century." We had massive ice jams across the rivers. Compared to Katrina now, it was nothing, but within a few days after the storm, Ridge was all over the media screaming about how FEMA was dragging its heels in getting help to us.

I guess some things never change.

Yeah, I want to see more on Blanco. She certainly delayed on asking for help from the feds, but it appears at least some of that was because the feds were playing power games ("You don't get helicopters, National Guard, food and water unless we get put in charge."); I want to know what else she did that could have been done better.

"Yeah, I want to see more on Blanco. She certainly delayed on asking for help from the feds, but it appears at least some of that was because the feds were playing power games ("You don't get helicopters, National Guard, food and water unless we get put in charge."); I want to know what else she did that could have been done better."

If this turns out to be true, it sure doesn't mesh with what some Repubs are now saying, that the process is a bottom-top process. If primary responsibility rests, as Bush and his supporters feel it should, with local and state representatives, shouldn't that mean that when they ask for help, the Fed. just provides what supplies are asked for? And the governor and mayor get to be in charge, or at least in the chain of command? If the Fed response was "sure, we can help, but we help OUR way, or you get nothing," I think a majority of people would have an issue with that. While people were suffering and dieing, government managers were having a pissing match.

Sorry, I wanted to add a fourth prediction to my earlier post: over the next few weeks, various governmental agencies will do their level best to keep the press out of New Orleans. Their justification will be the potential health hazards of the area, but in fact they're actually doing it to keep us from seeing all the dead bodies that will be exposed by the receding waters. What they won't be able to do is keep out people with their own video cameras who manage to get slip the gauntlet.

If you change the word "blame" to "responsibility" what happens? Who is responsible for what happened? In this case, the responsibility falls on FEMA. Handling crises like this is why FEMA exists, and they dragged their feet. Instead of preparing for the worst, they were caught flat-footed. Memos have already surfaced showing that Michael Brown waited 5 hours after Katrina hit before acting, then suggested sending in 1,000 agency workers -- after 48 hours of training them. (Check http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/documents-show-how-disaster-agency-delayed/2005/09/08/1125772641508.html?oneclick=true for the article.) Isn't it FEMA's responsibility to act quickly, not wait 5 hours after a disaster hits? Shouldn't the personnel be trained and ready to act, not need 2 days to get ready? After 9/11, we didn't spend 48 hours training pilots to patrol the air.

But I don't think anything will happen to Michael Brown. Karl Rove outed a covert government agent during the war on terrorism, and Bush went from firing anyone who leaked her identity to firing anyone convicted of a crime. U.S. soldiers tortued and humiliated Iraqi prisoners (heck, we have photos of this) and no leaders were held responsible. George Tenet may be facing legal charged for his falsifying intelligence about Iraq, and Bush gave him a medal. So with Bush providing the best job security imaginable to his friends, I doubt a little think like Michael Brown failing to do his job will be enough for Bush to have him take responsibility for that failure.

Here's what a friend of mine and two other college students did to help:
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-643298.html
I thought everyone might find it an interesting portrait of the state of affairs down there.

If this turns out to be true, it sure doesn't mesh with what some Repubs are now saying, that the process is a bottom-top process. If primary responsibility rests, as Bush and his supporters feel it should, with local and state representatives, shouldn't that mean that when they ask for help, the Fed. just provides what supplies are asked for? And the governor and mayor get to be in charge, or at least in the chain of command? If the Fed response was "sure, we can help, but we help OUR way, or you get nothing," I think a majority of people would have an issue with that. While people were suffering and dieing, government managers were having a pissing match.

This is what the LA Governors' office says (which may be spin); there was a quote from the NY Times stating

"But furious state and local officials insisted that the real problem was that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which Mr. Chertoff's department oversees, failed to deliver urgently needed help and, through incomprehensible red tape, even thwarted others' efforts to help.

"We wanted soldiers, helicopters, food and water," said Denise Bottcher,
press secretary for Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana. "They
wanted to negotiate an organizational chart."

But the NY TIMES quotes an anonymous source says this was more of a "power sharing agreement." Which, if true, just means they wanted to grab power.....

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had two comments that I found particularly relevant. The first was that to the Bush Administration, calling it the "blame game" is their way of dismissing what anyone else would call accountability, and the second was that usually, those who "dont play the blame game" are usually to blame.

If you missed last night's Daily show, you really should check out the replay. Stewart's delivery when saying "to blame" cannot be in any sense re-created in text.

Well. Now this is interesting. FEMA hired a private company, IEM Inc., to assess the evacuation plan for New Orleans. They were also suppose to shore it up by designing an evacuation plan for getting the old, sick, and poor out. But the funding for that got cut and it never got done.

Hm.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/03/Worldandnation/One_question_builds__.shtml

"It's not a game" -PAD

Peter, would you please pass that on to your liberal friends who want to take advanages of tragedies, like this to further their politcal power? I know democrats are exempt from even the hint of playing political games, and everyone should hate Bush as much as you do, but it seems to me that you may missing something.
One more thing, I'm a little confused by your logic: You say Bush is playing "game" because the administration has stated it doesn't want to play the "Blame game". Their desire to "Not Play" would mean they are ar NOT playing a game, but are taking it seriously. I would take their statement as to mean that they are suggesting some people may be treating this situation like a "game". If I say "I don't want to play monopoly", would you then accuse me of "playing monopoly"? I think the president should have gone in sooner, but the govenor of Louisianna needed to sign off, and she had to think things over, so he couldn't. Bush's mistake was letting her think too long. I know liberals think the federal government should be all powerful, but until you guys burn the constitution there will have to be a system to be followed. The funny thing is liberals love bureaucracy, which is what hindered things in NO and after we have all these hearing and committees we will end up with an even larger bureaucracy in place. Oh, Peter why don't you look up how all the levies are managed in NO, what politcal persons are responsible for each levy, and the steps needed to go through to do anything to a levy? Or don't look it up as it might make it a little harder to hate Bush so much (and since he is the devil lets not give him any benefit of the doubt).

"Sorry, I wanted to add a fourth prediction to my earlier post: over the next few weeks, various governmental agencies will do their level best to keep the press out of New Orleans."

Already happening. Photojournalists have been turned away at several points.

Once again, I don't buy this "we had to wait until the governor said pretty please before FEMA could help" argument. The city was literally drowning, and if FEMA immediately started airlifting supplies into New Orleans without all the paperwork being signed, well I'm sure everyone would have been willing to overlook all the bureaucratic niceties just this once.

It's kinda like a "do as I say, not as I do" thing with this bunch, isn't it? You can almost be assured that whenever the Mayberry Machiavellis accuse their supposed enemies of doing something, they've already done that very thing (or are still in the process of doing so).

I can't get this quote from Frank Herbert out of my head:
"The difference between a good administrator and a bad one is about five heartbeats. Good administrators make immediate choices."
"Acceptable choices?"
"They can usually be made to work. A bad administrator, on the other hand, hesitates, diddles around, asks for committees, for research and reports. Eventually he acts in ways which create serious problems."

Anybody seen a good administrator lately? All I seem to be findly lately is bureaucrats.

I "love" how the focus is shifting from why people were left to wallow in their own filth for 3 days to blaming local government for not getting those people out before the storm.

Yes governments on all levels failed before the storm, some of those failures going back decades. However none of those failures excuses what happened in the days after Katrina hit. The most powerful nation ever should not treat its own citizens the way we did last week. WTF is wrong with us that we care more about pointing out what went wrong before hand, when deaths and what not not weretheorectical, to gain political points then about how FEMA failed so miserably last week when there were actual people in harms way?

I'm not saying that local goivernments should get away blameless for poor planning. I am saying that, once the nature of what was going on became clear, the lack of a prompt rescue response was appalling. Given the right (or wrong) circumstances, that could have just as easily have been one of our mothers we saw dead in that wheelchair or one of our children that we saw dehydrated and upset.

>Apparently, that's only the first part of FEMA protocol; if you DO ask, they'll say "If you want our help, we have to be in charge."

Makes sense. You want ONE person/organization in charge, otherwise trying to get coherent/effective action out of the various groups involved becomes a nightmare.

"While people were suffering and dieing, government managers were having a pissing match."

Were that it was just an American thing. Back in the winter of '98, when the ice storm hit and we had communities without power or water for a week or more, we had the military (Federal level) base in one area wanting to help out, only to be told to "butt out" by the anti-Federalist Québec provincial government who didn't want to be upstaged by the rest of Canada. Idiots.

>(From the link in PAD's original comment) "I want to hear that he was panicked. Because I was panicked. Everyone I know was panicked."

Uh, I don't. Think about it. The leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, given to panic attacks? Somehow that would not be a terribly conforting thought.

Lastly, the Japanese have a very wise saying: "Fix the problem, not the blame." Deciding who's to blame is one thing. Having a workable, effective plan in place to ensure it doesn't happen again is another, and rather more important, matter altogether.

I have a question: the republican party is obviously very good at creating talking points and creating and taking control of the discourse. Why are the democrats unable to match that? It seems the minute Karl Rove thought of the "Blame Game" quote, everybody in the administration and everybody still defending them was saying nothing else. Why are their oponents unable to create Quotes like that too, for example, as somebody suggested, exchange the blame for responsibility. "We're not playing the Blame Game, We're playing the Responsibility Game". Take charge and don't let the opponent define the terms.

I'll admit that my quote probably isn't the best possible, but I'm not paid for that kind of stuff. Don't the Democrats have people who are paid a lot of money for exactly that?

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/637/1/

Now this interesting, apparently, Bush's pre-storm declaration of emergency only applied to the inland parishes.

Gee, don't hurricanes usually attack the coast first?

If this turns out to be true, it sure doesn't mesh with what some Repubs are now saying, that the process is a bottom-top process. If primary responsibility rests, as Bush and his supporters feel it should, with local and state representatives, shouldn't that mean that when they ask for help, the Fed. just provides what supplies are asked for? And the governor and mayor get to be in charge, or at least in the chain of command? If the Fed response was "sure, we can help, but we help OUR way, or you get nothing," I think a majority of people would have an issue with that. While people were suffering and dieing, government managers were having a pissing match.

The governor has a lot of responsibility in these situations. Bush can declare a disaster situation, but other troops or national guard can't be sent in unless the state governor requests it. What really ticks me off is that for all the claims on all sides that bureacracy won't hinder aid - that's exactly what happened. Some reports indicate the Bush kept asking for Blanco to officially request federalizing the issue, but Blanco was concerned about the political ramifications. I think your last comment spells it out nicely.

Well, Benjamin, you just hit on one of the strong points of this administration: They are very good at finding the right sound bite and running with it.

It's kind of sad that the voters can be influence by repeating certain slogons, but I guess it works.

It seems to me that this administration has, from day one, approached governing as a marketing project rather than a management one. The problem is, it's become clear that the only thing they have to sell are empty slogons.

"Lastly, the Japanese have a very wise saying: "Fix the problem, not the blame." Deciding who's to blame is one thing. Having a workable, effective plan in place to ensure it doesn't happen again is another, and rather more important, matter altogether."

I agree with this. In this case, I think the problem IS the administration. If the only thing plopping in front of the administration were just a slow response to a national disaster, I'd feel less strongly about that. But this is just the latest failure in a long line of failures directly related to this particular kind of national event. Going back to the creation of Homeland Security, to the changes to FEMA and the budget raiding that lessened our response time, there's been one series of actions after another that directly lead to the Federal paralyzation that occured for 3, 4 days after the worst disaster to hit occurred. And what's worse, is not only did we have years and years to prepare, we also had days of advance warning that this might occur.

The governor has a lot of responsibility in these situations. Bush can declare a disaster situation, but other troops or national guard can't be sent in unless the state governor requests it. What really ticks me off is that for all the claims on all sides that bureacracy won't hinder aid - that's exactly what happened. Some reports indicate the Bush kept asking for Blanco to officially request federalizing the issue, but Blanco was concerned about the political ramifications. I think your last comment spells it out nicely.

No.

This is dead wrong.

According to the timelines, Blanco asked for federal help BEFORE the hurricane hit. She was offered help from other governors with more National Guard on that same day, but paperwork kept them from entering Louisiana until the next week. She asked for federal resources, but FEMA wanted to be in charge. If it's the local government's responsibility, then GIVE THEM THE RESOURCES.

"I have a question: the republican party is obviously very good at creating talking points and creating and taking control of the discourse. Why are the democrats unable to match that?"

Because most Dems still have a conscience?

--R.J.

Apparently, that's only the first part of FEMA protocol; if you DO ask, they'll say "If you want our help, we have to be in charge."

Makes sense. You want ONE person/organization in charge, otherwise trying to get coherent/effective action out of the various groups involved becomes a nightmare.

Then don't you DARE say that it's the local government's responsibility as first responders. Then you HAVE to say that it's the federal government's job to step in and take over and to hell with local control and responsibility. But that's NOT what the Bush administration is saying.

Moreover, bringing up this kind of jurisdictional dispute at the 11th hour is DUMB. Either the responsibility is local--so give the resources to the local authorities....or the responsibility is national...so get your ass in there and get going.

Moreover, bringing up this kind of jurisdictional dispute at the 11th hour is DUMB. Either the responsibility is local--so give the resources to the local authorities....or the responsibility is national...so get your ass in there and get going.

Haven't you figured it out yet, Roger? Bush is responsible for nothing. It's always someone else's fault. PAD is right, they'll be pinning it on Clinton sooner or later.

Considering that one of the first things out of the mouths of the Mayor of NO and the Govenor of the state was to blame the feds and especially Bush, I would say that the President is reacting defensively

Considering that Bush has made it the Dept of Homeland Security's job, and thus FEMA's job, to deal with all diasters in the US, Bush is sitting naked in the sand, baking to death, and deservingly so.

"Then don't you DARE say that it's the local government's responsibility as first responders. Then you HAVE to say that it's the federal government's job to step in and take over and to hell with local control and responsibility. But that's NOT what the Bush administration is saying."
Dude, it's called "Autonomy", y'know the thing that people excercise so that no one can force you to do something you don't want to do even if you're being stupid. The federal government is "suppose" to be LIMITED in how much power can be ussurped from the states (read constitution), but this is a foreign concept these days since: A) No one reads the constituion and B)People expect the government to wipe their butt for them.

"Would you please pass that on to your liberal friends who want to take advanages of tragedies, like this to further their politcal power?"

Randy,

I would agree with you more on this if it was only us liberals who were questioning what has happened. Unless, of course, you consider Newt Gingrich a liberal.

http://www.drudge.com/news/72930/gingrich-criticizes-bush-homeland-security

Dude, it's called "Autonomy", y'know the thing that people excercise so that no one can force you to do something you don't want to do even if you're being stupid. The federal government is "suppose" to be LIMITED in how much power can be ussurped from the states (read constitution), but this is a foreign concept these days since: A) No one reads the constituion and B)People expect the government to wipe their butt for them.

The problem was that FEMA TRIED TO OVERIDE THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND RUN ROUGHSHOD OVER THAT AUTONOMY. And THEY'RE COMPLAINING THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES FAILED.

Dude, I call that hypocisy and incompetence, all rolled into one.

I just find it hilarious that the right-wingers are claiming that LA's governor wouldn't sign over power to the feds when the disaster hit, and that's why they couldn't move in.

Can someone please tell me exactly when Jeb in FL signed over the authority in his state to the feds when FEMA moved in *HOURS* after the hurricanes struck FL? Or is it that the governor has a (D) next to her name, and *isn't* related to the "Let them eat cake" family?

And, to all of those who claim that LA should have had all of this food and emergency supplies stockpiled ahead of time - can you tell me where *the 49th poorest state in the nation* is going to come up with the money to pay for it?

I know - they will just whip out their "Louisiana Express Card" - don't get caught in a flood without it! Yup, they are just laying on *piles* of cash in that state...

Does anybody truly doubt if the people who were abandoned at the Convention Center were White republicans, they would have been rescued a lot sooner?

If they were white republicans, they wouldn't have been trapped at the Superdome in the first place. Bush would have had them airlifted from their homes.

Does anyone seriously think that if a Democrat was in office the same fucking things would have happened?

This is about A)it not being an election year, therefore there was no need to make sure as many people as possible were happy with Bush(as was the case in 2004 in Florida) and B) general bureaucratic nightmarish BS.

Neither of which is a Republican specific problem. Democrats are just as easily caught up in expediency during an election year, the cronyism that lead to a FEMA director with no credentials AND they're even worse at being overly optimistic about things in general.

As for the article wishing there were stories about Bush losing his shit over this.

Do you want a President who will panic and lose his shit over things or one that's calm and collected.

I've no love for Bush, but most of this would have been the same under a Democrat, don't fool yourselves, Democrats aren't any more competant or any less corrupt and lazy.

While I'm sure quoting the NYT is going to send a few people here into epileptic seizures, I thought they had an editorial yesterday that expressed things absolutely brilliantly:

This is not a game. It is critical to know what "things went wrong," as Mr. Bush put it. But we also need to know which officials failed - not to humiliate them, but to replace them with competent people.

It's obvious, for instance, that Michael Brown has met the expectations of those who warned that he would be a terrible director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This is no time to be engaging in a wholesale change of leadership, but in Mr. Brown's case there seems to be precious little leadership to lose. He should be replaced with someone who can do the huge job that remains to be done.

They go on to say that things extend way beyond Brown, and various other things.

Yes, they should probably be looking at state and local officials more than they are, but I think they did a good job absolutely demolishing the idea that this is about nothing more than "the blame game."

TWL

Democrats are just as easily caught up in expediency during an election year, the cronyism that lead to a FEMA director with no credentials AND they're even worse at being overly optimistic about things in general.

While in general I'd agree with this, I'll disagree with the second point. The only time in my entire adult life that FEMA did its job worth a damn was under James Witt, a Clinton appointee. It was lousy under Reagan, under Bush I, and it's lousy again now that Bush II is appointing buddies rather than experienced people.

TWL

Do you want a President who will panic and lose his shit over things or one that's calm and collected.

Bush doesn't get panicked - he gets utterly dumbfounded, as we saw during 9/11.

But panicked, worried, caring, considering? None of those things.

Bush should be just as pissed off as the mayor of NO and governor or LA about how this went down. But Bush just keeps on a'smilin and makes things sound all happy-go-lucky.

I just wanted to respond to one factoid, repeated again upthread (but to be found in every discussion I've encountered on the topic, usually in an attempt to dismiss arguments of state or federal responsibility for the disaster). No one "decide[d] to build a city below sea level". When New Orleans was built, to greatly ease trade from the Mississippi River, it was well above sea level. The sea level, and the level of the ground, have changed over the ensuing centuries.

And Randy, the "autonomy" argument doesn't wash. Remember that one of the purposes of the Constitution is "to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare...". That's why FEMA was established in the first place. And originally, when it was headed by people who actually had some sort of experience in dealing with emergencies, it did its job quite effectively. When potential disasters were seen brewing, they would enter the area beforehand, and make sure that whatever they thought was necessary was already on hand. Now, under the "management" of a former horse inspector, they not only aren't there beforehand, they aren't even there afterward until someone gives this so-called "leader" specific directions! Remember when Brown said that he was unaware of anyone in the Superdome? Or of the conditions there? I don't watch the 24-hour news channels - I caught the news of the Superdome roof coming off, and the stories of some of the evacuees, during a News Update segment on a local channel here in San Diego. So, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency was less well-informed about the ongoing emergency in New Orleans than was a citizen half a continent away from the action, who happened to be bored and channel-surfing one afternoon. This doesn't look good...

You know what's truly sad is that the only thing consistent about the Bush II Administration is lack of accountability in anything and everything that doesn't go Bush's way.

Does anyone seriously think that if a Democrat was in office the same fucking things would have happened?

Maybe the same thing could have happened. Maybe not. Despite the rhetoric we throw around here, I don't believe that either Democrats or Republicans are single, monolithic groups in which everyone things and acts the same way. Phrases like "liberals love bureaucracy" or "all republicans only care about is the rich" therefore are meaningless to me.

What I can say with 100% certainty, is that the people this particular president appointed bungled their job. Whether some hypothetical Democrat president would have appointed someone better, I don't know. I do think, however, that the kind of turf war wrangling that apparently occured last week is symptom of the "you are either with us or against us" mentality that is endemic to this particular administration. Maybe a president, democrat or republican, who valued people skills over cronyism and a willingness to be called by demeaning nicknames, could have gotten better cooperation and planning for emergency response.

All I know for certain is that this president had four years since 9/11 to revamp our national emergency response program and he screwed it up royally.

"Dude, it's called "Autonomy", y'know the thing that people excercise so that no one can force you to do something you don't want to do even if you're being stupid. The federal government is "suppose" to be LIMITED in how much power can be ussurped from the states (read constitution), but this is a foreign concept these days since: A) No one reads the constituion and B)People expect the government to wipe their butt for them."

I have, in fact, read the constitution, and parts of it quite recently, and there's a little clause in there calling for the Federal Government to act to protect the general welfare. Also to act to protect interstate commerce. New Orleans, sitting at the mouth of the Mississippi, serves as a commercial and industrial gateway for nearly the entire country. Anything that fouls that up impacts a lot more than just people that live there. And the entire Gulf Coast is home to over 10% of the this nation's oil production, refining, and pipeline capacity. Since we're an industrial society, whether we like it or not, we run on petroleum. It impacts every single facet of every single American life. All our prices are impacted by an oil disruption.

So, when people try to retort that this is just a liberl attempt to expand the Federal power, I laugh. When the Federal Government fails to take action to protect the few things the Constitution actually does give it power to protect, yet at the same time seems to be taking more and more steps to try and restrict things like marriage and freedom of speech and religion, things that the Bill of Rights expressly prevents the Federal government from regulating, I really start to wonder if, as you say, the people not reading the Constitution include those that derive their authority from it.

"Now, under the "management" of a former horse inspector, they not only aren't there beforehand, they aren't even there afterward until someone gives this so-called "leader" specific directions!"

What makes this worse is that, in just a few years since FEMA moved under DHS, a good number of the mid-level managers, those with experience in dealing with disasters during the Clinton years, left the agency. You can manage very well with incompetent top level management, if your field managers know what they're doing. But when you have incompetency at multiple levels, you're not going to be effective at all.

Peter, thanks for the additional link, which voices one of the points that really bugged me over the last few days. I'm not sure I want to speak for any of the unfortunate people who suffered through this terrible experience, but I wonder how some of them felt if they'd been able to get to a TV and saw their president with that damned ever-present smirk of his, glad-handing Brownie for doing a good job and joking about sitting on the porch with Trent Lott (who will no doubt be at the front of the line when it comes to doling out money to rebuild). Whether or not Bush cared about what was going on, he didn't APPEAR to care. When hundreds of dead bodies are floating face down in the flooded streets of New Orleans, it's not a time for jocularity, real or forced.

And to the previous poster who wondered why the Democrats can't come up with an appropriate sound bite, maybe it's because some of them are actually taking the situation seriously. The fact that Republicans use the phrase 'blame game' as a key talking point speaks volumes. To some of them, it is indeed a game.

Finally, while everybody seems to heaping tns of blame on FEMA, the White House and just about everybody on a Federal level, I can'thelp thinking it's the local or state gvernment officials who were responsible for row after row of school buses now submerged under the flood waters when they should have been used to evacuate hundreds, even thousands of people out of New Orleans. If we're playing the blame game, there's more than enough blame to go around.

Blame Game Tied

http://borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1210&srch=

Let us go back to the ol' story of the boy who cried wolf and why left wing media bias hurts everyone.

Bush's opponents have been trying to destroy him for years. After 9/11 "Bush Knew" now the supposed claims of racism.

Even when there is legitimate reason for critic, everyone is instantly on the defensive,
Everyone is instantly polarized the only thing that suffers is healthy debate and the truth.

All levles of gov't failed miserably. But instead of looking for the true weak link and at this point we have to look at Governor Blanco, you;re too busy asking for Bush's head.

1 Anybody else notice that President Bush has, at least twice, refered to the gulf coast area of the country, of which he is president, as "that part of the world"?

Let us go back to the ol' story of the boy who cried wolf and why left wing media bias hurts everyone.

What left wing media bias? You mean the media that has turned into a bunch of Bush-loving sycophants?

Bush's opponents have been trying to destroy him for years.

As opposed to the GOP, who did nothing but give Clinton the benefit of the doubt for years.

F#ck, 5 years later and Clinton's enemies still can't stop bitching about how much they hated him!

But instead of looking for the true weak link and at this point we have to look at Governor Blanco, you;re too busy asking for Bush's head.

Since I'm not a resident of Louisiana, I'll leave calls for her head to her own constituents. I do, however, have to live under Bush for another three years, so I feel justified in calling for his accountability.

"Because most Dems still have a conscience?"

I know a lot of republicans. I know a lot od democrats. Their lack of conscience is pretty much the same...they just lack it in different areas.

I'm watching CNN and there showing the devastaton to Plaquemines Parish which is a local government that stretches tens of miles southeast of New Orleans out to the Gulf of Mexico.

The community is still submerged. People are trying to cope. National guardsmen are just entering the area for the first time.

And guess what - every person in that parish on CNN's cameras is white.

So don't tell me race has anything to do with this tragedy. Federal bureaucratic incompetence has to do with this tragedy. State bureaucractic incompetence has to do with this tragedy.

I'm sick of hearing about racism. When major hurricanes hit, they go in, destroy everything in sight and then go away and the flood waters recede immediately because most communities are above sea level. The poor response to Hurricane Katrina is the unique setting of southern Louisiana where entire communities (and cities like New Orleans) lie BELOW SEA LEVEL. How can the National Guard trucks move in? How can the FEMA trucks move in? Its not like there is a massive stockpile of thousands of small watercraft that the federal, state or local government has access to. The uniqueness of the local geography is the #1 reason for the slow emergency response. Not the color of anybody's skin.

All levles of gov't failed miserably.

At least we can agree on this.

But instead of looking for the true weak link and at this point we have to look at Governor Blanco, you;re too busy asking for Bush's head.

Ahh, so in the same breath, you say "We shouldn't blame Bush, we should blame Governor Blanco".

Yet, who created the mess that is the Dept of Homeland Security and FEMA? Bush.

Who sent our National Guard to Iraq when they could be home and helping save lives? Bush.

Who sent our money to Iraq when it will now be needed for rebuilding here? Bush.

Who refused to give money to LA to help shore up their levees? Bush.

Who appointed Brown, an incredibly unqualified man for the position of authority he was in, to head FEMA? Bush.

I sense a pattern here...

So, when people try to retort that this is just a liberl attempt to expand the Federal power, I laugh.

I laugh, too, because from what I can tell, the Louisiana governor is being blamed for the actions of the federal government trying to flex ITS muscles.

I think that's ironic. (Though whether or not she could have tried harder or in a different direction may be pertinent)(but the point remains is that at least one point of failure stems from a federal grab for power).

All levles of gov't failed miserably. But instead of looking for the true weak link and at this point we have to look at Governor Blanco,

Not for failure to call in federal resources, from waht I can see. But perhaps there's some other drastic fumbles she's made; I think I want to be educated on them.

i think we're all overlooking the fact that many hurricanes pass through Cuba before coming to the U.S.

Cuba has long been an enemy of the United States and of freedom. i say that Cuba is the geographic center of the Global War on Hurricanes.

i think it's time we start building popular support for regime change in Cuba, by negotiation if necessary, by military aggression if possible.

after the horror of Hurricane Katrina, i think most people would agree that we'd be better off fighting the hurricanes in Cuba so we don't have to fight them back home.

Thank you for your responses.

I never said we should not blame Bush
Bush should be critiqued. It is your right to critique and Bush screwed up. This was a tragedy

However if you suffer from BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome) things quickly escalate and get out of control.

It is the histrionics that let the debate get taken over by extremists. Most BDS sufferers do not realize they are extremists.

Take Craig for example. Clear signs of BDS:

HIM: Ahh, so in the same breath, you say "We shouldn't blame Bush, we should blame Governor Blanco".

ME: If all evidence shows she was negligent then yes,

HIM Yet, who created the mess that is the Dept of Homeland Security and FEMA? Bush.

ME: You;re right. Evidence shows that Blanco hindered both organizations

HIM Who sent our National Guard to Iraq when they could be home and helping save lives? Bush.

ME: BDS ALERT!!!!

HIM: Who sent our money to Iraq when it will now be needed for rebuilding here? Bush.

ME: Major BDS readings. Off the charts!!

HIM: Who refused to give money to LA to help shore up their levees? Bush.

ME: No one refused. Evidence shows that the levvee money was transfered by state officials themselves. IN fact a scandal insued as to where the money went (state politicians pockets)

HIM: Who appointed Brown, an incredibly unqualified man for the position of authority he was in, to head FEMA? Bush.

ME: you're right!

It is all about race.

Katrina. Wiht a "K"?????

Why not a "C"???? Uh!

Racist Hurricane.

Kanye West is an asshole!

HIM Yet, who created the mess that is the Dept of Homeland Security and FEMA? Bush.

ME: You;re right. Evidence shows that Blanco hindered both organizations

Not before Katrina hit. That was when FEMA tried to muscle in and cut the local authorities out. (And after that action, would it be rational to rely on them?)

But other actions?

And, yeah, folks are right; it's not a race thing. A class thing, maybe....but not race.

AnthonyX: We live in polarizing times and it does seem like the whole country is divided into two factions: One that blames Bush for everything from the economy to post-nasal drip and the other that seems pathologically incapable of admitting he's ever made a mistake in his life.

I admit I lean towards the former, but in this case, we do have a clear instance where Bush at first appeared to not care about people's suffering while the feds played jurisdictional games with the state and local authorities. It's also clear that Brown had absolutely no clue about anything going on in New Orleans even though he was supposedly doing "a heck of job."

I really have to wonder what was going through his mind in Biloxi. Thousands of people are dead and thousands are stranded without food or water. I know, let's a make a joke about partying in NO! Then I'll talk about how I can't wait to see Trent's no porch.

As for the race issue: I don't think Bush is actively racist. I do, however think that he is largely indifferent to people, black or white, making less than six-figure incomes and it shows in his generally carefree attitude.

However if you suffer from BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome) things quickly escalate and get out of control.

No, the only degranged person is that monkey in the White House.

And people like yourself, who are more than ready to genuflect at the Altar of All Things Bush.

As I said, there is no accountability. And you, AnthonyX, continue to support such a lack of accountability to the complete and total detriment of this country.

"What left wing media bias? You mean the media that has turned into a bunch of Bush-loving sycophants?"

Now, I think the left wing bias is an overstatement...but I think this is a bigger one...outside of FOX, I haven't seen much media that praises and does happy dances around Bush. I've seen plenty of criticism and questions-including with the NO tragedy that focus heavily on Bush as the problem and pay little attention to anyone else's failures. The few places that I have seen harp on the Mayor and Gov harder than on Bush have been primarily non-mainstream sites.

Sue me, I'm slow.

But back to the folks discussing whether they'd want the President to show a little concern, or outright fear, in the face of the devastation some have suffered. I think I'd prefer fear to his glibness cracking jokes when people are STILL DIEING in the devastated areas.

Well, the media criticism of Bush for Katrina has been the exception, not the rule. For the most part, the White House Press Corps has swallowed whatever sh!t this administration served up and asked for seconds.

And excuse me, but how is it the media's job to do "happy dances" around Bush? I always thought that it was the news media's job to hold government's feet (regardless of which party was in power) to fire and not let them get away with pulling a fast one.

Silly me.

Happy dance at my house this weekend.

"Dude, I call that hypocisy and incompetence, all rolled into one."

As Homer Simpson would say "Thats right! hypompetence!"

or maybe incomocisy

JAC

Interesting article from the Wash Post:

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon. . . .

Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke Aug. 30. Now she's holed up with her family in a St. Louis hotel, and her neighborhood is underwater. "Our politicians never cared half as much about protecting us as they cared about pork," Dashiell said.

Glenn at Instapundit has a great suggestion--lets divert some of the money wasted on pork projects like those in the transportation bill to the resconstruction of New Orleans.

Glenn at Instapundit has a great suggestion--lets divert some of the money wasted on pork projects like those in the transportation bill to the resconstruction of New Orleans.

Seconded.

BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome)

HIM Who sent our National Guard to Iraq when they could be home and helping save lives? Bush.

ME: BDS ALERT!!!!

So are you saying that bush is deranged for doing this or that bush isn't the one who sent them there?

I think it's a great idea. Let's start with that $221 million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska and the bike paths Pelosi funded in California.

Isn't it obscene that the federal government can find money to build bike paths, but couldn't find the cash to fund a project that might have prevented the flooding in NO back in 1998?

And excuse me, when did I *say* it was their *job* to do "happy dances"? Seriously...all I was noting with that statement was that they never seem that enamored with Bush. You made it sound like the media is contantly in high praise of Bush and heavily supportive of him.

It's not the media's job to do happy dances around *any* president. They should should, frankly, avoid being to cozy with any and all of them.

That bridge doesn't go to no where! It leads to an island that has a permanent resident population of like 12 people. 12! Do you know what a pain...ah, nevermind, even in sarcasm mode, I can't keep that up.

The worst thing about that project is that it's going to be named after the blowhard that wrote it into the bill. George Washington and the rest of our Founders would be all set to rise from the dead and revolt all over again, seeing as how we've effectively replaced our hereditary monarchy with an elective one.

Well, I guess I should have put a smiley in there somewhere, Thom.

Anyway, we essentially agree on the happy dance thing. I just wanted to have some fun with the name.

I'll happily third Glenn's suggestion. For the price of a vanity bridge project to a remote Alaskan island with a population of 50, think of the amount of meals that could be provided. Or construction supplies. Or clothing. And that's just one of many self-serving projects that could easily be jettisoned for the greater good.

I'm reminded of that scene from the movie Dave, where Kevin Kline rounds up his cabinet and asks them to do away with some of the more ridiculous projects in order to make extra money available for a homeless shelter. Naturally all the politicians capitulate, because they don't want to be heartless, but could you imagine George Bush saying, 'Hey Alaska guy, do you think you could sacrifice an expensive but useless bridge in order to feed several thousand of your fell Americans?'

No, I couldn't imagine it either. For a moment, I was just having a Capra moment there.

Sorry, that should have been fellow Americans. Guess I was having an illiterate moment too.

"Well, I guess I should have put a smiley in there somewhere, Thom."

#@&! right you should have. :) I thought you were thinking I thought the media should do a little dance for the president.

"Anyway, we essentially agree on the happy dance thing. I just wanted to have some fun with the name."

Yup. It is a fun name. :)

Fell Americans. That's one significant slip. Imagine..."My Sinister Americans....."

Well, if I wanted to blame Bush, I'd do it for not cracking heads at FEMA and Homeland Security and telling to Get It Done Now, and for changing the course of FEMA to something that's far less useful than it was. But that's a venial sin that's WAAYYYY down my list (certainly way below the mayor).

I REALLY want the meat axe on the meat heads at FEMA that were diddling around with bureucratic nonsense like org charts, sexual harassment training for emergnecy workers and using trained search-and-rescue personnel to hand out flyers. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mary Hudak...

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3004197

I think the real Bush Derangement Syndrome is the percentage of Americans who will find fault with ANYTHING Bush does.

There seems to be a pathological tendency amongst people on the left when it comes to ANYONE named Bush. They come up with bizarro conspiracies and insane readings of their behavior that seem to have no relation to the middle ground I choose to stake out.

From the middle, this vast land of "both sides have points" this place where no one is pure evil and no one is a Shining Knight Come To Save The Day where Howard Dean's just as kooky as Bush and Al Franken and Michael Moore are as annoying as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly I don't see Bush as evil, I don't see the war in Iraq as wrong, wrongly founded but perfectly acceptable considering who was running Iraq, I don't see the aftermath of the hurricane as anyone's fault but the pencil pushers who demanded to have approval for basic needs AND the media's treatment of the process like it should happen like a fucking war.

Random Aside:

Air Drops Are Not A Good Idea
In war a bomb can miss a target. If they had dropped food and water from a plane PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE DROPS or worse, those food and water drops would have been comandeered by the thugs who had taken over the Superdome.

Point is they had to secure the ground before thye could have an orderly dispersal of the food.

And why wasn't the ground secure?

Beacuse Nagin is as much of a fuckup in this as anyone else. Have you not seen the pictures of a FLEET of schoolbusses that could have been used to take people out of NOLA?

Everyone failed. Democrat, republican, pencil pusher. They should all be fired.

But we won't do that, because you people are so fucking attached to your political parties that we'll never get rid of them, no matter how corrupt and ineffectual they are.

You vote Democrat and Republican exclusively, it's your fault as well. You created this mess by relying on corrupt parties.

Again, I voted against Bush, I don't care for the Bushes, I would never vote for one, but my dislike is not pathological. It's based upon their lack of tact and inability to stop putting up everyman fronts when none of them have worked a day in their lives.

Has anyone any information on the story circulating that the Red Cross was trying to deliver food, water and blankets to the people in the superdome and were stopped by the Louisianna Dept of Homeland Security? Supposedly they didn't want any more people to go to the superdome so they stopped the delivery.

I think it's a good idea to take any story with a grain of salt these days so I'd like some confirmation beofre I call for the head of whoever decided to make starvation and subhuman living conditions as the Official Policy.

"Have you not seen the pictures of a FLEET of schoolbusses that could have been used to take people out of NOLA?"

Many people have mentioned this and, if in fact, NO had the resources to operate those buses, then city offcials f*cked up big time.

However I tend to think using these buses was easier said then done:

1) were those buses operational? (I imagine the answer is "yes," given that the school year was about to start, but we don't know)

2) did they have enough qualified drivers? (putting random people behind the wheel of a 5-ton bevile carrying 50 peoples during a mass evacuation is *not* a good idea)

3) did they have fuel for those buses?

I'm really interested to see how this all shakes out.

Has anyone any information on the story circulating that the Red Cross was trying to deliver food, water and blankets to the people in the superdome and were stopped by the Louisianna Dept of Homeland Security? Supposedly they didn't want any more people to go to the superdome so they stopped the delivery.

Think this is on the Red Cross web site. Part of the reasoning is to try to draw people OUT of New Orleans. Guess the problem is that they haven't a clue on how to do that [which may or may not be stupid, as the state would have to use National Guard forces to do this, and I don't know feasible that was. Nor do I know what camps were available for foot travel, though the state should have known that, as well].

Glenn at Instapundit has a great suggestion--lets divert some of the money wasted on pork projects like those in the transportation bill to the resconstruction of New Orleans.

Fourthed, or fifthed, or whatever number we're up to now. Count me in.

TWL

Wow, a lot of reading for a thread which started about eight hours ago - ! Many good points here, starting with PAD. And thank you for that link, PAD - some EXCELLENT points made there. True, you don't want a panicked president; but one who seemed to give more than just the tinniest flying f#*k about the thousands of Americans suffering, dying, and dead would be nice. However much blame is due at however many levels - some at all of them, obviously - we seem to have seen at least as much concern about avoiding ANY responsibility for ANYTHING by the administration as we have for the people whose lives have been devestated or lost. I'm reminded of the Presidential debate last year wherein Bush was asked to admit a mistake, and he just COULDN'T DO IT. Whether this is because it has just been drummed into him so deeply to never admit ANY fault AT ALL because it could possibly hurt your grip on power, or this is indicative of a chronic mental inability to perceive one's own errors on his part, is debateable. (If he did actually admit that mistakes were made in the Katrina situation, but pledged to work at correcting them - and actually did make some beneficial changes - any attempt to turn his admission against him could backfire on the people trying to use it. But, there may be too many "if"s there .... And the Republican leadership appears to have paired the mindset of "Our way is the only way - you must fall in line" with "We don't err. We never err.") Obviously it's too much to hope for Bush ever to be eloquent (though it occurred to me today that two of our most eloquent presidents, Presidents Clinton and Kennedy, appear to have been two of our most adulterous, as well. Coincidnce? Well, the gift of gab can often be very useful in the romance department .... This would make it less likely that W. Bush will ever be caught having an affair - he couldn't SPEAK his way into much of anything, let alone that); but for him to be more than superficially moved and saddened by the death and losses of thousands of his constituants - those he's supposed to be serving (and I don't really buy the racism argument, either, though the question of classism should be examined) - his fellow Americans, fellow human beings - shouldn't be too much to ask.

1) were those buses operational? (I imagine the answer is "yes," given that the school year was about to start, but we don't know)

Everything I've read says yes. Why would they have hundreds of non-working buses anyway?

2) did they have enough qualified drivers? (putting random people behind the wheel of a 5-ton bevile carrying 50 peoples during a mass evacuation is *not* a good idea)

I can drive a bus. I do it occasionally for field trips and things. It's easy. Kind of like driving a car only taller. At any rate, excluding Halle Berry or Ted Kennedy, it's hard to imagine many drivers being a worse option than staying.

3) did they have fuel for those buses?

Even if they were bone dry they had planty of time to fill them. This was a hurricane not an earthquake.

I say; let the investigations begin. There will be so much blame to spread around it's even possible some truth will come out.

Some of it may make people uncomfortable. An interesting bit from John Berlau:

The national Sierra Club was one of several environmental groups who sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees.

The Army Corps was planning to upgrade 303 miles of levees along the river in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. This was needed, a Corps spokesman told the Baton Rouge, La., newspaper The Advocate, because “a failure could wreak catastrophic consequences on Louisiana and Mississippi which the states would be decades in overcoming, if they overcame them at all.”

But a suit filed by environmental groups at the U.S. District Court in New Orleans claimed the Corps had not looked at “the impact on bottomland hardwood wetlands.” The lawsuit stated, “Bottomland hardwood forests must be protected and restored if the Louisiana black bear is to survive as a species, and if we are to ensure continued support for source population of all birds breeding in the lower Mississippi River valley.” In addition to the Sierra Club, other parties to the suit were the group American Rivers, the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, and the Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi Wildlife Federations.

The lawsuit was settled in 1997 with the Corps agreeing to hold off on some work while doing an additional two-year environmental impact study. Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain.

here's the thing though--the Sierra Club may well have been correct. At least one person I know with considerable expertise in this stuff (a flaming liberal but I love the guy) thinks that the levees have ultimately made things worse than they would have been if nature had been allowed to take its course and that this will just accelerate now. If New Orleans is rebuilt with ever taller levees the result will be, at some not so distant point in the future, a storm that causes even more devastation. repeat as needed.

I don't know if he's right. I don't even know if the question can be asked.

And, regarding that Alaskan bridge pork project: according to Rolling Stone (which is undoubtedly anti-Bush, perhaps to the extent of sometimes harming the appearance of their journalistic integrity at this point; but this particular sidebar [issue 981] lists pork from both sides), $223 million will go to one bridge, while "Don Young's Way" is a separate $231 million project bridging a sparsely populated marshland. At least he remembered his wife while putting this together - his bill is called SAFETEA-LU - "Lu" because it's his wife's name :)

There was also a very interesting article in Scientific American a few years ago (I don't have a link handy, but if you google Drowning New Orleans and Scientific American, you can find it easily) that lays everything out chapter and verse about how this disaster was waiting to happen, what were some of the factors that made it worse, and what could have been done to prevent it. Ironically, even if some of the environmental suggestions put forward in the article a couple of years ago were implemented the following day, it probably would have been too late anyway. Nevertheless, it's all there in black and white, in simple language that anybody with even an average intelligence could understand, which apparently excludes Arabian horse breeders-turned FEMA chiefs, Homeland Security directors and a current president.

Scientific American, Oct. 2001.

National Geographic, Oct. 2004.

The links are available at snopes.com.

Ummm... excuse me, American people? My President seems to be broken or something, because he's completely ineffectual. I'd like to know how to go about getting my money back? A refund or an exchange or something? 'Cause I really ain't liking what I've got...

Seriously, people, I think we've more than conclusively proven that Bush sucks hard at being a president. His approval levels are in the toilet, the rampant cronyism in his administration has got to be worse than the Harding and Grant tenures combined, and Mr. "I'm-a-uniter-not-a-divider" is FAR AND AWAY the most divisive presence in America's political landscape. Even his staunchest supporters are having a hard time justifying his actions. Honestly, I don't care if he's a Dem, a Repub, or a freakin' American Communist... there's got to be a person out there who can handle the job better. How far does he have to fall before Americans flat-out demand a new President?

There's no way Bush is responsible for the lack of response in New Orleans. This is a reality that so many seem willing to acknowledge.

"Isn't it obscene that the federal government can find money to build bike paths, but couldn't find the cash to fund a project that might have prevented the flooding in NO back in 1998?"

i don't know the specifics on this case, but bike paths aren't something i'd complain about. considering this nation's problems with oil dependency and obesity (not to mention urban gridlock), i think bike paths are a pretty good use of gov't money, especially if they make it easier for one to use a bicycle for practical transport.

recreational bike paths are a nice thing but i would argue that paths for bicycle commuters could be a serious boon to the community.

i'm not saying it's more important than fixing levies, but i would say it's more important than giving the rich tax breaks.

FEMA Blocking Relief Efforts - An Amazing List
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10195.htm

There's no way Bush is responsible for the lack of response in New Orleans

Who removed the competant head of FEMA & replaced him with incompetant cronies? Who put a likewise incompetant person in charge of homeland security? Who moved the National Guard 8000 miles away from where it was needed?

And most importantly - who was playing golf, attending concerts & going to birthday parties while thousands were dying in the flood waters?

bush isn't alone to blame, but he deserves the most because he had command of the most resources & chose instead to piss away those resources & enjoy himself while others paid the price of his decisions.

There's no way Bush is responsible for the lack of response in New Orleans

It's his team that's running it, right? It's his strategy that led FEMA in a new direction in his direction, right? It was his strategy that led to the demphasis of disaster recovery for FEMA earlier this year right?

In the world of business, that means the man at the top is ultimately responsible for strategy and the placement of his men in the proper place. If they screw up, it's his screw up, too, particularly if he could have stepped in to mitigate the damage.

What you're saying is that Bush is no way responsible for the performance of his appointees. That his remaking of FEMA had no impact on the function of the organization. That it was the right call to de-emphasize disaster mitigation and disaster relief for FEMA.

You don't believe in responsibility and you're anti-business, aren't you?

i don't know the specifics on this case, but bike paths aren't something i'd complain about. considering this nation's problems with oil dependency and obesity (not to mention urban gridlock), i think bike paths are a pretty good use of gov't money, especially if they make it easier for one to use a bicycle for practical transport.

The question isn't whether they are a good idea. I'd be all for it if a local government wanted to build bike paths in their community. The question is, should this be something the FEDERAL government should be footing the bill for?

I'd rather let state and local governments build the small stuff and let the feds put their money into the large scale projects.

Ummm... excuse me, American people? My President seems to be broken or something, because he's completely ineffectual.

Now I'm flashing on that guy who was on The Amazing Race a while back...

"My President is BROKEN!! This is BULLSHIT!!!"

:)

Just since I've seen it come up here and elsewhere:

http://gov.louisiana.gov/2005%20%20proclamations/48pro2005-Emergency-HurricaneKatrina.pdf

http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf

These are the papers filed creating a State of Emergency and requesting aid and relief (with FEMA refs) before the thing hit NO. The statements that the ball was dropped and that Bush had to beg the local government to declare a State of Emergency or to request aid are %100 bull***t.

The Red Cross link:

I can't find it and no one seems to be posting it. I keep hearing about the story but no one is giving out a link. The Red Cross homepage doesn’t have anything that stands out and the articles I've read don't say anything of the kind (or even hint at it.)

I'm not saying that the story isn't true. I'm just saying that it would be nice if all the people talking about it would link it so that the rest of us could read the entire piece and see what the entire statements were.

And there were other things holding up aid relief.

Citing Rep. Charlie Melancon's (D-LA) chief of staff, a September 3 New Orleans Times-Picayune article reported that crews were unable to deliver three tons of food for hurricane survivors in Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish and Algiers Point on September 2, as "air traffic was halted because of President Bush's visit to New Orleans." The food, secured by Melancon and Bob Odom, Louisiana's agriculture commissioner, "baked in the afternoon sun as Bush surveyed damage across southeast Louisiana," according to the Times-Picayune. A September 2 Associated Press article reported the difficulty Melancon had in contacting Bush regarding federal aid for refugees in St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes and also noted Melancon's claim that the restriction on air traffic hindered getting aid to those parishes. According to the AP:

In St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes, just south of New Orleans, victims of the hurricane are still waiting for food and water and for buses to escape the floodwaters, Melancon said. And for the entire time Bush was in the state, the congressman said, a ban on helicopter flights further stalled the delivery of food and supplies.

"I thank the president for his visit today, but it was more show than substance," Melancon said. "Frankly, we needed action days ago."

Another September 2 AP article cited a paramedic who reported that helicopters transporting sick and injured refugees to a makeshift treatment center at New Orleans' Louis Armstrong International Airport were "stopped" upon Bush's arrival, though the AP did not indicate the duration or effect of their grounding. According to the AP: "Helicopters flying patients in for treatment were stopped Friday when President Bush arrived. But the president didn't enter the airport, which swelled with armed guards during his visit, [paramedic James] Teague said."

http://www.nola.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/print076556.html

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_CONGRESSMAN?SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-09-02-22-38-44

http://www.journal-news.com/local/content/gen/ap/OH_Katrina_Ohioans.html

And everybody's fave wingnut, Pat Robertson, seems to believe that the trashing of NO has a really good side.

From the September 1 edition of CBN's The 700 Club:

LEE WEBB (CBN News anchor): And back here at home, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be introduced by a Republican and Democrat when his confirmation hearings begin next Tuesday in Washington. USA Today reports Virginia Republican John Warner and Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh will appear with Roberts. It's viewed as a positive symbolic boost for Roberts. The nominee is from Bayh's state of Indiana. Bayh, though, says he hasn't decided whether he will vote for Roberts, but many moderate Democrats are expected to support him. Liberal senators like Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer have criticized Roberts. And now, let's go back over to Terry with more of the Club.

TERRY MEEUWSEN (co-host): And this is an important time for us to remember to be praying for what's happening with regard to the judicial system, because it's so easy to forget that in light of the --

ROBERTSON: That's right.

MEEUWSEN: -- situation that's happening south of us.

ROBERTSON: Well, in a sense, they say it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Out of this tragedy, the focus of America is going to be on these victims, and inflamed rhetoric in the United States Senate is just not going to play well now because this is a time of healing and compassion and reaching out to people, and if they start going on a vendetta against Roberts in the Senate, it's just going to hurt them. And I think they know that, so, I mean, Judge Roberts can, maybe, you know, be thankful that a tragedy has brought him some good.

There are numerous reasons why I don't (and most of America) do not blame Bush for the lack of response to the New Orleans crisis. One is simply that it's happened in New Orleans in a way that it hasn't happened to the other major cities that were devastated by Katrina. The state and city government is accountable for holding back the Red Cross and diverting food and supplies away from the Superdome. It was the state and city government which had an evacuation plan that it failed to implement. Bush, observing the powers alotted to the states, called Governor Blanco and asked her to declare what she needed to to allow him to send in the guard and she did not do so quick enough.

And this business about there not being enough Nat'l Guard for this crisis is also pap. The Nat'l Guard have been the most efficient part of the recovery thus far. Nobody directly involved with this is lamenting a lack of manpower in that area. Only leftist pundits.

"Bush, observing the powers alotted to the states, called Governor Blanco and asked her to declare what she needed to to allow him to send in the guard and she did not do so quick enough."

Again, total BS that's been debunked over and over and over again. Aug. 26th wasn't quick enough? It was more then a day before Katrina's eye even hit NO and a full week before Bush and Co. seemed to actually start acting like it really mattered to them. What, she was supposed to do it before the storm came into the gulf so Bush could get his photo ops together? Maybe you fell she should have reserved the time a month in advance.

One of the reasons I like to pop in here every once in a while is to read the sheer, seething and totally irrational hatred for Bush that comes up on my screen. Mostly for a good laugh. But today is a bit different because the accusations toward him are being flung before we've even collected all the bodies. This is an absolutely HUGE disaster. And to look at it in hindsight before it's even close to being over and trying to somehow correlate this to a Bush failure would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic. Bush Opponents were trying to tell us that Bush orchestrated the hurricane first (through not signing Kyoto and by "not doing enough" about global warming). Then he "planned" for the levies to break. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush Opponents will use ANYTHING they can grope for and try to somehow pin it on Bush. It has been a constant ever since he has had the position of President. I believe most people have seen it happen too many times now to not have started anticipating it, and rejecting it... as evidenced by a recent USAToday poll (a poll source that most Bush Opponents seem to trust) that stated that only 13% of those polled believe Bush is responsible for the tragedy and its level of poor response. But I'd like to continue seeing more of this irrationality and hatred. So, please continue! :)

DW

A rather outraged friend of mine was going off on The Shrub's lack of response time just last week. She was saying how after the 3-Mile Island disaster, Jimmy Carter was there the next day, in a radiation suit, touring the building to survey the situation. Meanwhile, it took our president 3 days to put down the Nintendo long enough to see what the fuss was about in NO.

For the last few years, I've been hearing apologists giving mutually exclusive excuses for the president's lack of response time. Like the president is "Never REALLY on vacation, he's always at work." Then I hear "The president delegates things like this so he doesn't have to be at the ready 24/7" when it came to the 9/11 disaster and the excuse for him not reacting fast enough when he had a more pressing photo op reading to a bunch of schoolkids. (And the other one "Would you rather he panicked a bunch of schoolkids?" Hey, what's wrong with someone simply saying "Sorry, the president can't read "Phil the Foofy Bunny" to you today, he's got important president things to do"? How would THAT have panicked the kids?) So, which excuse is it?

Not blaming Bush for the hurricane, but simply for his apparent lack of decisive, timely action. Applying both standard excuses given doesn't exactly inspire confidence either way. Either he was "On the job 24/7, even on vacation" and simply didn't think it worth the time to respond faster, or he "delegated the decision" on whether or not he should act to someone else, who dropped the ball. Either one of those scenarios give you a warm, fuzzy feeling of comfort? I don't care who the president is or which political party he belongs to. If a disaster befalls the country he's supposed to be in charge of, whose people he's supposed to represent and protect, then by God I want to see someone who can take charge at the drop of a hat.

Finally, it was interesting to hear people say "I wonder when they'll start blaming Clinton for not doing enough to stop hurricanes". The current sound bite I'm seeing in the news stories is the current bereaucrats at all levels are saying that the fund for the levees has been a "Favorite target for fund cuts of ALL administrations, so don't blame us", even though it's seen some of it's biggest cuts in it's history lately. More disturbing is the report that the Army Corps of engineers proposed a study to determine how best to protect New Orleans in just this sort of situation, given all the warnings about how the city couldn't handle even a moderate hurricane. And the current administration told them that such a study was "Unnecessary".

You know what... I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know if this study would have done any good, and this isn't "Hindsight criticism"... But I believe in "Better safe than sorry" and I honestly don't see how a STUDY on HOW TO MAKE PEOPLE SAFER could have made the situation any worse. Whatever paper-pusher dismissed this study as "Unnesessary" should have his bacon frying in a very big pan right now. Why? If someone running a company refuses to fund a study on how to make his building safer, and it collapses and kills hundreds, he's liable for not taking all the steps necessary to ensure safety. People who make these kinds of decisions that could affect people's lives down the line have NO problem turning down proposals like this because for the most part, they're insulated from any consequences. If we hold the people running things to the same standards that those of us in the public sector are held to, maybe some people will start covering their butts more by doing what's RIGHT and not what's best for them.

The Red Cross link:

I can't find it and no one seems to be posting it. I keep hearing about the story but no one is giving out a link. The Red Cross homepage doesn’t have anything that stands out and the articles I've read don't say anything of the kind (or even hint at it.)

I'm not saying that the story isn't true. I'm just saying that it would be nice if all the people talking about it would link it so that the rest of us could read the entire piece and see what the entire statements were.

Well I don't know if you consider this "anything that stands out" but on the red Cross homepage I found the following:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html
Acess to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

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

Meanwhile, the few reporters who bothered with the story kept getting it wrong--confusing the Homeland Security agency in Washington with the unrelated State Agency. So this one guy did the unthinkable--he called up the Red Cross!
http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2005/09/another_katrina_1.html

Yesterday I called the National Affairs office of the Red Cross (202-303-5551) and talked with Red Cross spokesperson Lesly Simmons, who told me that the shipment was not turned away by the US Dept of Homeland Security, but by this agency:

The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (LHLS & EP); formally the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness (LOEP), was created by the Civil Act of 1950 and is under the Louisiana Military Department.

Ms. Simmons also told me that the Red Cross has never mentioned any involvement in this incident by FEMA, because FEMA wasn't involved. But lazy reporters and partisan Democrats eager to pin as much blame as they can for any mishaps or screw-ups in the wake of this tragedy on the federal government (Read: George W. Bush) can't be bothered with facts that don't fit their agenda.

Lastly, there is a video you can download here (http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/08/garretredcross/) that actually has the president of the Red cross, as well as a rep from the Salvation Army, confirming that state officials deliberately kept them from delivering food to the superdome. (The reporting is from Fox News so some of you may choose to disregard it.)

You'd think this would be a bigger story...I'm sure there must be a perfectly good explanation why it isn't.

"She was saying how after the 3-Mile Island disaster, Jimmy Carter was there the next day, in a radiation suit, touring the building to survey the situation."

It's interesting that you should bring this up. Carter was a former navigation officer on a nuclear submarine, and was thus well aware that there was nothing to fear from touring 3-Mile Island. The toxic soup that saturates NO is by far more dangerous.

DW

"It's interesting that you should bring this up. Carter was a former navigation officer on a nuclear submarine, and was thus well aware that there was nothing to fear from touring 3-Mile Island. The toxic soup that saturates NO is by far more dangerous."

The only area that poses any possible serious danger is New Orleans proper, and other flooded areas. There are plenty of areas where the waters had receded come Wednesday, or even Tuesday. Suggesting that the situation may have been too dangerous for the President to safely visit is nothing more than making an excuse.

"It's interesting that you should bring this up. Carter was a former navigation officer on a nuclear submarine, and was thus well aware that there was nothing to fear from touring 3-Mile Island. The toxic soup that saturates NO is by far more dangerous."

SO? The point is when there was a disaster, Carter was on the job, while bush continued his vacation for another 4 days.

And have you all forgotten what happened when Carter visited? The way the radiation caused him to grow at an uncontrolable rate becoming...THE AMAZING COLLOSAL PRESIDENT!!!

He was big, I'll tell you that, he was a big guy. I tell you he was so big, I saw him sitting in the George Washington bridge dangling his feet in the water! He was a big guy! He was so big that when two girls made love to him at the same time, they never met each other! He was a big guy, you know what I mean? Why he could have had an affair with the Lincoln Tunnel! I mean, he was really big! He was a big guy!

On the lighter side: A Japanese weatherman says that hurricane Katrina was caused by the Yukuza

http://www.flashnews.com/news/wfn1050908J5463.html

To paraphrase Robertson "Someone should take Bush out". First-he steals an election. Second-he takes out the Twin Towers(due to his incompetence). Third-he creates a hurricane to take out part of the US. Fourth-he blows up the levees to make sure the flooding destroys many cities. Fifth-as a racist, he makes sure black people in a predominately black area are not saved quick enough. When I hear that one person has so much power, I'm glad I have no interest in politics. Because as I listen to all of you bitch and moan about the other party, I am surprised we haven't destroyed ourselves yet. I did say 'yet'.

"It's not a game" -PAD

Peter, would you please pass that on to your liberal friends who want to take advanages of tragedies, like this to further their politcal power? I know democrats are exempt from even the hint of playing political games, and everyone should hate Bush as much as you do, but it seems to me that you may missing something.

Chummer, don’t bitch that the Democrats are exploiting tragedy unless you’re willing to hold Republicans to the same standard. They uncorked the genie playing political power games with 9/11. If Republicans whine that Democrats aren’t taking the high road when they’ve been playing tunnel rat for years, they have no one save themselves to blame.

One more thing, I'm a little confused by your logic: You say Bush is playing "game" because the administration has stated it doesn't want to play the "Blame game". Their desire to "Not Play" would mean they are ar NOT playing a game, but are taking it seriously. I would take their statement as to mean that they are suggesting some people may be treating this situation like a "game". If I say "I don't want to play monopoly", would you then accuse me of "playing monopoly"?

You’re not confused. You’re being intentionally obtuse. The fact that Bush and his underlings have insisted on not playing the “blame game” while still finding time to blame local officials for everything suggests politicking as usual. (My favorite example was a high muckety-muck of the Department of Homeland Defense who essentially said it was New Orleansians’ fault because they knew they were living in a soup bowl below sea level. That’s akin to saying that the victims of 9/11 should have known that the World Trade Center was a prime terrorist target, ‘cause, hey, it was hit before.) Quite frankly, considering the amount of double talk, equivocation, and manufactured talking points this administration produces on such a regular level, I’m disinclined to believe that the Pope was Catholic if this administration pronounced it so. Considering how quickly, the “blame game” meme spread through conservative circles, yes, I think the Bush administration is indeed playing political games as usual. And as has been said before, assigning accountability is not a game, it’s simply the responsible thing to do.

I think the president should have gone in sooner, but the govenor of Louisianna needed to sign off, and she had to think things over, so he couldn't. Bush's mistake was letting her think too long. I know liberals think the federal government should be all powerful, but until you guys burn the constitution there will have to be a system to be followed. The funny thing is liberals love bureaucracy, which is what hindered things in NO and after we have all these hearing and committees we will end up with an even larger bureaucracy in place.

Oh, bullshit. It’s been stated before and worth mentioning again that the LA governor asked well in advance for help but didn’t get much response. The fact it took days, rather than hours for Bush to respond suggests his indifference to suffering. And considering that Bush himself instituted a huge bureaucracy with the utterly feckless Department of Homeland Security, well by your standards he must be a closet flaming liberal.

Oh, Peter why don't you look up how all the levies are managed in NO, what politcal persons are responsible for each levy, and the steps needed to go through to do anything to a levy? Or don't look it up as it might make it a little harder to hate Bush so much (and since he is the devil lets not give him any benefit of the doubt).

Oh, Randy, why can’t you take a step back from your dogmatism and accept that Bush fucked a goodly amount of shit up, the most (?) dramatic of which was replacing a competent head of FEMA with a clueless crony? The biggest problem I have with a good portion of the current political right is their utter inability to criticize the president even when he is clearly wrong. (Or for that matter, adopt any position or philosophy that isn’t lockstep with what’s been duly approved by the gods on high at the RNC.) The fact that you insist that Bush did absolutely nothing wrong (except spuriously suggest that he didn’t move fast enough because the governor of Louisiana wouldn’t let him) tells me you are blinded with partisan blinders.

Take them off, please. You’ll be amazed how much more you’ll be able to see.

One of the reasons I like to pop in here every once in a while is to read the sheer, seething and totally irrational hatred for Bush that comes up on my screen.

Sorry, friend. Mostly, you'll only find totally rational hatred for Bush and his works here.

:)

I recommend going to Ted Rall's site if you want something more (but not completely) less rational.

After Hurricane Betsy hit in 1965 (go ahead and Google it, I won't spoon feed you), if the city officials of N.O. had spent as much $$$ on shoring up the levees as they did on corruption, them folks would still be doing just fine...speaking as someone who grew up on Palmer near Tulane.

Does anyone seriously think that if a Democrat was in office the same fucking things would have happened?/

This is about A)it not being an election year, therefore there was no need to make sure as many people as possible were happy with Bush(as was the case in 2004 in Florida) and B) general bureaucratic nightmarish BS.

Neither of which is a Republican specific problem. Democrats are just as easily caught up in expediency during an election year, the cronyism that lead to a FEMA director with no credentials AND they're even worse at being overly optimistic about things in general.

Mayhap, but a President Gore wouldn’t have replaced James Witt with someone who managed to beat the Peter Principle and a President Kerry wouldn’t have kept Michael Brown as head of FEMA.

And as for being overly optimistic, I don't think Democrats are necessarily that generally, but they can be on specific issues.

As for the article wishing there were stories about Bush losing his shit over this.

Do you want a President who will panic and lose his shit over things or one that's calm and collected.

Well, Bush isn't acting calm and collected; he’s acting callous and aloof. What that article was asking for was a human response from the President, rather than what was displayed. I’d expect sorrow, determination, and firm leadership. Instead, I get a someone acting like an overgrown fratboy cracking jokes and commerserating with a millionaire over his lost house while not giving even a superficial nod to ruined lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands of “everday” Americans.

I've no love for Bush, but most of this would have been the same under a Democrat, don't fool yourselves, Democrats aren't any more competant or any less corrupt and lazy.

I’m hard pressed to imagine that any other administration could equal the heights of incompentance, corruption, and foot-dragging that this one has achieved.

But we won't do that, because you people are so fucking attached to your political parties that we'll never get rid of them, no matter how corrupt and ineffectual th