# How Bush Blew It



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 11, 2005)

An article outlining the roles of the key players in the Katrina drama:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/site/newsweek/


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2005)

I think that Bush's lag in jumping in on this was certainly irresponsible.  Were I him, I think I'd have reached out to see if there was assistance that the government could provide.  But its indicative of a larger problem: different levels of government need to have clearer policies regarding the delegation of emergency responsibilities and defined communication protocols.  Cities and national governments need closer relationships than they currently enjoy.  There are circumstances such as this which require dialogue between all levels of government.

 In my view, the blame for the fallout from this mess lies with the people of New Orleans.  I know that's a harsh thing to say, but I do believe that the citizens of the city bear responsibility for the usefulness, quality and upkeep of those levies.  If the people had made their safety a priority, perhaps this wouldn't have turned out quite so bad.  

 The Civic leadership should have had better emergency planning in place.  The truth is, the city existed in a very illogical place.  The potential for such an event to occur must have been known, all things considered, and was obviously inadequately prepared for.  

 I have no idea how they are going to begin to salvage that place.  The largest American natural disaster (thus far) was certainly a big one.


----------



## kelly keltner (Sep 12, 2005)

I have a new idea for a reality show.
We'll call it "Wheel of Natural disaster"
Let's see how many folks stay in the path of a huricane with 4-5 days notice to get out of the area. When It's over we will spin off to a new show "The blame game."
We had ships heading to the are with relief and supplies. It makes no sense to put them in the path of the storm. If we have citizens shooting at the relief worker's does it not make sense to secure the area so they can be safe. 

Sure there were areas where the "system" did not work as well as it could have/ should have worked. Sure we have to learn from our mistakes and make strides to improve on how we respond to disasters. It would be the same if any president were in office.

Kell


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2005)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> It would be the same if any president were in office.


No, really, it wouldn't.

None of the Presidents senior advisors wanted to bring 'bad news' to the President because, he reportedly behaves badly. So, in order to properly prepare the President for what he was going to see when he arrived in New Orleans, a senior aide made a DVD copy of the *Nightly Newcasts* so the President could review them while he was enroute to New Orleans on Airforce 1.

The President is living the life of an untreated alcoholic. Blame everything on someone else. It's never his fault. Senior Advisors can't tell him what is going on, because of his reactions. 

I think there are very few former Presidents that have been so isolated from reality.


----------



## ginshun (Sep 12, 2005)

So the reason for the slow response to Katrina was that Bush's senior advisors were afraid to tell him about it for fear he would throw a tantrum?

 Do you have a source for that?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So the reason for the slow response to Katrina was that Bush's senior advisors were afraid to tell him about it for fear he would throw a tantrum?
> 
> Do you have a source for that?


Yes! ... (Welcome to the reality based world).

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/site/newsweek/?rf=technorati



> Sept. 19, 2005 issue - It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: *who gets to deliver the bad news?* Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States, or, as he is known in West Wing jargon, POTUS. *The bad news on this early morning*, Tuesday, Aug. 30, some 24 hours after Hurricane Katrina had ripped through New Orleans, *was that the president would have to cut short his five-week vacation by a couple of days* and return to Washington. The president's chief of staff, Andrew Card; his deputy chief of staff, Joe Hagin; his counselor, Dan Bartlett, and his spokesman, Scott McClellan, held a conference call to discuss the question of the president's early return and the delicate task of telling him.
> 
> ....
> 
> The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.


----------



## ginshun (Sep 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes! ... (Welcome to the reality based world).
> 
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/site/newsweek/?rf=technorati


 
 I guess I still don't understand.  Is that article claiming that the president knew nothing of the hurricane until Aug. 30?  That doesn't seem quite right.

 What would have been a better way to inform him of the current situation than to show him all the newscasts about it?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I guess I still don't understand.  Is that article claiming that the president knew nothing of the hurricane until Aug. 30?  That doesn't seem quite right.



Why not??

President Bush has stated several times in the past that he doesn't feel the need to watch or read the news. Apparently, because they consist of nothing else other than "eh, opinions".

This would be completely keeping in character with our Commander-in-Chief.


----------



## ginshun (Sep 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Why not??
> 
> President Bush has stated several times in the past that he doesn't feel the need to watch or read the news. Apparently, because they consist of nothing else other than "eh, opinions".
> 
> This would be completely keeping in character with our Commander-in-Chief.


 Sorry, maybe it was the fact that I read this earlier today:



			
				Hurricane Katrina Timeline said:
			
		

> Sunday, August 28
> 
> _Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said *President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation. The Presidents call came just prior to the news conference and occurred after the decision had already been made. *for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding. _


_ 
 I suppose you guys are right though.  It makes perfect sense that his aids were afraid to tell him about the hurricane two days later.



_


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I suppose you guys are right though.  It makes perfect sense that his aids were afraid to tell him about the hurricane two days later.



Hey now, I'm not making a claim one way or another regarding the President's response to Hurricane Katrina. I haven't done the research to warrant a concrete position on this subject.

However, as I said before, a severely delayed response owing to an ignorance of daily news would not have been atypical of President Bush. It would, in fact, be a very much in-character response that we could expect from his past leadership.

That being said, I would perhaps be somewhat skeptical of a timeline posted on an online blog. But, that's just me.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2005)

Well he posts all the events with links from the dated source. Id trust that more than some anonymous persons opinion on a martial arts forum.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Id trust that more than some anonymous persons opinion on a martial arts forum.



Again, _if you'll actually read my posts_, I am not making a claim one way or the other in regards to the appropriateness of the President's response.

Oye.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2005)

Ginshun, your link in the quote "Hurrican Katrina Timeline" doesn't seem to be working correctly.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I guess I still don't understand. Is that article claiming that the president knew nothing of the hurricane until Aug. 30? That doesn't seem quite right.
> 
> What would have been a better way to inform him of the current situation than to show him all the newscasts about it?


I believe you are incorrectly reading the time line in the story. There are two items here. 

No one wanted to tell the President that the hurricane was so bad that he had to end his vacation two days early.

After ending his vacation, before his first trip to the Gulf Coast, aides were concerned that he did not have a clear understanding of what the reality on the ground. They made a copy of the Nightly News for him to review what was going on. (This would have been .... Thursday evening, for Friday morning's trip, I think). 

Apparently, the aides giving the President information were filtering it such that the President was as informed as the rest of the country, who were getting their information by simply turning on the television.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Again, _if you'll actually read my posts_, I am not making a claim one way or the other in regards to the appropriateness of the President's response.
> 
> Oye.


If you read mine you will see Im referring to your comment about the timeline, which Ive looked at and found to be as accurate as one could ask as most sources are from the Times-Picyaune.

Gosh
Sheesh
Oye
Arghh


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2005)

Oh, for Buddha's sake...



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> If you read mine you will see Im referring to your comment about the timeline, which Ive looked at and found to be as accurate as one could ask as most sources are from the Times-Picyaune.
> 
> Gosh
> Sheesh
> ...



For the umpteenth time, please _read_ what I'm _actually_ posting.

I _never_ claimed the timeline was inaccurate or unreliable. I merely _suggested_ fostering a skeptical attitude concerning information from online blogs. That is all.

Yikes.


----------



## ginshun (Sep 12, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Ginshun, your link in the quote "Hurrican Katrina Timeline" doesn't seem to be working correctly.


 I didn't actually post a link.  The link in the quote was from the blog, I don't know what the deal with it is, and the blog itself was posted by Tgace in a different thread.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oh, for Buddha's sake...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahh the tactic of discounting a point based on the online source regardless of where the original data came from..I get it.

Yoinks
Jinkies
Zoinks
HubbaHubba


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2005)

You have to be kidding me...



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Ahh the tactic of discounting a point based on the online source regardless of where the original data came from..I get it.
> 
> Yoinks
> Jinkies
> ...



Oh, for the umpteenth time _plus one_, actually _read_ what I'm writing in my posts. Its really not that hard. Just take two minutes to review a few brief comments. 

Nowhere did I "discount" any "point" based on its source. I merely, yet again, _suggested_ one may want to foster a _skeptical outlook_ on such sources. "Skeptical outlook" does _not_ mean "discount without critical inquiry" or "reject without a second thought". It merely means to be critical of such sources.

And, yes, in general, secondary sources aren't exactly the best references in the world. Especially when dealing with historical events here.

This time, actually _read_ what I'm actually writing. Maybe then you'll "get it".

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The President is living the life of an untreated alcoholic. Blame everything on someone else. It's never his fault. Senior Advisors can't tell him what is going on, because of his reactions.
> 
> I think there are very few former Presidents that have been so isolated from reality.




Excellent observations.  He does in truth fit that description.  I never thought of it that way before.

I "googled" this and found that somebody actually wrote an article on this called "Dry Drunk Syndrome and George W. Bush":

http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html

The behaviors are as follows:

Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
Grandiose behavior
A rigid, judgmental outlook
Impatience
Childish behavior
Irresponsible behavior
Irrational rationalization
Projection
Overreaction
Obsessive thought patterns

Its a good article.  Hits the nail right on the head.  Having grown up with some alcoholics, I can attest to that.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2005)

So If I were to just post the articles from the blog directly from the source, then you would believe it?

Sheesh
Ugh
Blech


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So If I were to just post the articles from the blog directly from the source, then you would believe it?



Tgace, dude, buddy, bro, snoogans...

At _no_ point did I _ever_ say I _believed_ anything about the blog _one way or another_. I merely suggested, _yet again_, that a _skeptical attitude_ of such sources _might_ be prudent.

I mean, seriously, this _really_ isn't that big of a deal.  :lookie: 

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The President is living the life of an untreated alcoholic. Blame everything on someone else. It's never his fault. Senior Advisors can't tell him what is going on, because of his reactions.
> 
> I think there are very few former Presidents that have been so isolated from reality.


  Wow, this blame game is complicated...let me try.

 The president, "W" is living the life of an untreated alcoholic by blaming everything on someone else, yet his advisors blame him for their own withholding of information? 

  Truly, this blame game is dizzying.

  7sm


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Sep 13, 2005)

He was elected that is where the American Public blew it.

We have to find better leaders and people that actually care about the country than their own status. The disaster could have been better handled. People were not ready when they knew it was coming. I agree that people should have moved out of the way and left but pride for ones belongings can be very hard to move away from. People should not complain that it happened because it was an act of nature and they were warned but the slow response and handling or lack of handling of the situation I can see a reason for people to be upset.

The reason we are in Iraq is to finish Bush Sr problem. Now don't lie about it just tell the truth. Don't give a reason that you know is bogus. Did they learn from that. NO. They are now passing blame and trying to wiggle their way out of the very poor response to a hurricane they knew was coming. FEMA and the state governments should be able to get out of this either. New Orleans is below sea level you had to have known something was going to happen to it. I know measure could have been taken before the hurricane that were not taken.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Wow, this blame game is complicated...let me try.
> 
> The president, "W" is living the life of an untreated alcoholic by blaming everything on someone else, yet his advisors blame him for their own withholding of information?
> 
> ...


Spoken like someone with no understanding of alcoholism. 

The President is living the life of an untreated alcoholic.
Because of this, he blames everything on someone, or something else.
I don't believe his advisors blame him (the President) for anything. They are reluctant to be candid with him. 

Please be assured, I do not 'blame' the President for being an untreated alcoholic. As an alcoholic myself, I understand the nature of the condition. I know that he is not to blame for this illness. If, however, he wants to get treatment, instead of just sober, I can certainly point him to a few facilities.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 13, 2005)

Your response is candid for sure, but leaves things to be desired in a response. Your shifting the focus. You just said his advisors can't tell him whats going on because of his reactions. Um...its ok for them to pass blame for their falures I guess.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your response is candid for sure, but leaves things to be desired in a response. Your shifting the focus. You just said his advisors can't tell him whats going on because of his reactions. Um...its ok for them to pass blame for their falures I guess.
> 
> 7sm


The advisors are not passing blame to anyone.

The advisors are not taking responsibility. It is their job to inform the President of what is going on around the adminstration, and around the country. 

Of course, this just belies the Presidents repeated statements that he gets 'Good Information'; related to Karl Rove/Valerie Plame, related to weapons of mass destruction, related to global climate change, related to No Child Left Behind, related to opening ANWAR, related to tax policies. 

If the people serving the President can not be candid with him (as widely reported this past week) (exception granted to Mr. Rove and Ms. Hughes), our Administrative leadership is beginning to look an awful lot like Lady Justice. You know, blindfolded. And isn't that just what we need to lead the country, eh?


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 13, 2005)

It just amazes me the length of the efforts to blame stuff on the President. People are blaming him for local response not being fast enough in New Orleans and now he is to blame for not receiving information like and when he should. I dont try to keep blame off of Bush, but I'm not going to try and place it all one him either...thats asinine. If you think one person can hold the blame for everything that went on during and after Katrina your wrong. 

It seems the more I hear about Bush "blowing it" the thinner and less asociated with New Orleans the attacks become.

7sm


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2005)

Im all for assigning responsibility where its due. IMO the thing the president should have done was show up personally much sooner. 99% of leadership is just showing up and being seen. On the other hand, when the president does show up at places it sucks up a lot of resources, security, transportation etc. I have worked presidential security details on the local LE level so I know that. So I can see perhaps using that as a rationale. However he should of at least had a national address televised. I would have thought that the presidents handlers would have had a better look out for his image at this point in time.

However like 7SM, I think the whole "How Bush Blew it" thing is just a partisan bash fest rather than any real attempt to lay blame where it really belongs.


----------



## kelly keltner (Sep 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No, really, it wouldn't.
> 
> None of the Presidents senior advisors wanted to bring 'bad news' to the President because, he reportedly behaves badly. So, in order to properly prepare the President for what he was going to see when he arrived in New Orleans, a senior aide made a DVD copy of the *Nightly Newcasts* so the President could review them while he was enroute to New Orleans on Airforce 1.
> 
> ...


 Sure it would bottom line is there allways be something that can be done better. Sometimes people drop the ball so to speak and it is a huge improvement that needs to be strived for.  Sometimes things go relatively smooth and minor tweaks to the system are called for.
As far as the MSNBC article goes, come on the spin is in. 

kell


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> Sure it would bottom line is there allways be something that can be done better. Sometimes people drop the ball so to speak and it is a huge improvement that needs to be strived for. Sometimes things go relatively smooth and minor tweaks to the system are called for.
> As far as the MSNBC article goes, come on the spin is in.
> 
> kell


For the record, it is an article from 'Newsweek', the Magazine, not MSNBC. 

Now, I realize someone who holds a bias against MSNBC is likely to hold the same bias against Newsweek Magazine. Quite possibly, a person who has such a bias is unlikely to view the news report objectively.


----------



## kelly keltner (Sep 13, 2005)

Objectivity has nothing to do with it. I would treat the story with the same mentality if it came from FOX news. It has to do with the  way that the story is  written, not the news service it comes from. The spin is still in.
NEXT

Kelly


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

So, then, unspin it. 

Give us an example of the President listening to and evaluating something that goes against the policies he has chosen. Demonstrate where the article is wrong or incorrect. Show us senior advisors boldly bringing bad news to the White House and the President acting in a thoughtful way on that bad news. 

You know, something like Karl Rove telling the President, 'I leaked the name of a CIA operative'. From which the President says something like, 'I told the citizens I would get rid of anyone who leaked information. Karl, you have to go'. 

Go ahead. Should be simple.


----------



## kelly keltner (Sep 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, then, unspin it.
> 
> Give us an example of the President listening to and evaluating something that goes against the policies he has chosen. Demonstrate where the article is wrong or incorrect. Show us senior advisors boldly bringing bad news to the White House and the President acting in a thoughtful way on that bad news.
> 
> ...


 My, My, My
Aren't we in a mood this evening. Why don't you give the name of the white house staff who is making these claims. I don't think the article mentions many names. Making mountains out of molehills ain't that grand.
One other thing don't give me a load of garbage because I don't like the way the article's written. A little more substance and a lot less of the anonymous would go a long way in my opinion of this article. Don't give me this where I have to show you senior advisors boldly  bringing garbage. That fact is that the article is poorly written at best and constantly defending it is a futile effort. More substance less fluff.
Next

Kelly


----------



## JAMJTX (Sep 14, 2005)

The stories of a "lag" in response time are just that, manufactured by the left-wing press and the DNC.

The response to Katrina was actually quicker than to Hugo and Andrew.

People are under the mistaken impression that the Preisdent alone is responsible for this kind of disaster relief.  That is dead wrong.

The city of New Orleans had the responsibility of evacuating it's residence before the storm.  They Democrat Mayor refused to do that.

The state had the responsibility to mobilize an evacuation effort when the city refused to do so.  They failed to act.  The state had the responsibility to activate the National Guard and start the first stage of rescue and recovery.  They failed.

The President can declare the area a "disaster area" only after assessing the damage - not before.  Which is what he did.  It is then up to congress to come up with money, as only Congress can spend money.  Congress was slow to return from thier vacations to vote on the appropriations.  I don't know why the Republicans were slow to get back, but the Democrats were too slow in getting the relief efforts on the way because they were too busy taking photo ops, blaming the disaster on Bush and compiling hurricane footage for thier campaign fund raising commercials which were on the air before they even voted on the appropriations.

Mike Brown of FEMA was clearly in over his head, but just about everyone else would have been to.  There is no one around that had the experience in this kind of recovery as it never happened any where before.  but clearly Brown was the wrong man for the job.

Brown and his people were making some headway and they were no where near as slow as the media is telling.  They lie to create more interesting stories and pursue thier political agenda.  It is a known fact that CNN was looking only for the saddest stories, working to ensure that only the worst case scenarios were shown and the producers were coaching "victims" on how to express more anger.

The media wants you to believe that the response was slow because President Bush was "on vacation".  That is just stupid.  The Preisident of the United States is NEVER on vacation.  The Presidency is a 24/7 job.  No matter where he goes he has staff, computers, communication equipment and always ready to take off on a moments notice.  There was absolutely nothing he could do unitil after the storm passed and it was safe to fly over the area - which he did on his way back to the White House.  It would have been stupid to fly Air Force 1 from TX to D.C. then back to NOLA which he would have flown over any way on his way back to D.C from TX.  So they did the smart thing - they waited until the storm passed then flew over on the way back to D.C.

I know some people who are down in NOLA now working security details.  The biggest hamper to the rescue effort was the lawlessness and the shooting at recovery workers.  As the water was pouring in through the levee, the workers trying to repair the levee were shot at.  How can you expect anyone to work under those conditions?

The democrats were screaming about 25,000 dead bodies.  There's about 400 so far and will be no where near  25,000.  Another exxageration.

Not to mention that there were other areas affected besides NOLA.

What we have now is just the monday moring quarterbacks telling us what they would have done to win the big game if they were in charge.  But (thankfully) these kind of idiots do not often get to be in charge.  If Ted Kennedy were President he would be too drunk to know what to do.  If John Kerry were President he'd be asking his wife what she thinks he should do.
If Al Gore were President his first call would have been to Occidental Petroleum to see if they had any refineries in the area and if they needed any help.

Here's another fine example of democrat pitching in to help.
This is rich, black man who commandeered NG troops from the rescue effort, under false pretenses, leaving poor blacks to drown in the flood, while the troops took him to make sure his house was secured: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1123495&page=1

Then you hollywood leftists like Geralso Rivera shoving resue workers out of the way so he can get his picture taken as he pretends to rescue someone.
Then there's Sean Penn and his personal photographer showing up for phot ops as he pretends to rescue people because "Bush wouldn't".  unfortunately his boat sank before he could get the photo.  The story in the left-wing media was that Penn spent 9 hours resuing people and only saw 3 government boats.  What jackbutt!  Penn later showed up wondering the streets of NO with a shotgun trying to pretend to be restoring law and order.  These are the types of bozos and chowderheads that are no criticing the President and NG troops who have done a tremendous amount of extremely diificult work in an astonshishingly short amount of time.

If yu want to talk about "blowing it".  Start talking about the democrats at the state and local level who had the opportunity to avoid most of the catastrphe but refused to act.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2005)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> My, My, My
> Aren't we in a mood this evening. Why don't you give the name of the white house staff who is making these claims. I don't think the article mentions many names. Making mountains out of molehills ain't that grand.
> One other thing don't give me a load of garbage because I don't like the way the article's written. A little more substance and a lot less of the anonymous would go a long way in my opinion of this article. Don't give me this where I have to show you senior advisors boldly bringing garbage. That fact is that the article is poorly written at best and constantly defending it is a futile effort. More substance less fluff.
> Next
> ...


Well, Let's see ... President's Top Aides as named in the article:


Chief of Staff - Andrew Card
Deputy Chief of Staff - Joe Hagin
Counselor - Dan Bartlett
Spokesman - Scott McClellan
That seems pretty substantial to me. 

You are making bold claims about Evan Thomas as if you don't even know who he is. Turn off your radio. 

The only thing full of 'fluff' around here are your posts.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 14, 2005)

JAMJTX said:
			
		

> If yu want to talk about "blowing it". Start talking about the democrats at the state and local level who had the opportunity to avoid most of the catastrphe but refused to act.


Good luck. That would mean they would have to point the finger at themselves.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Good luck. That would mean they would have to point the finger at themselves.


And when power, telephone and wireless failed ... how exactly do you propose Mayor Nagin reach the next level of assistance? Smoke Signals? 

Also, look to the latest reports that show Governor Blanco took all appropriate steps in requesting Federal aid ... and when that was completed.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And when power, telephone and wireless failed ... how exactly do you propose Mayor Nagin reach the next level of assistance? Smoke Signals?
> 
> Also, look to the latest reports that show Governor Blanco took all appropriate steps in requesting Federal aid ... and when that was completed.


 You dont seriously think that city, state, and federal communication is reliant on public electric companies and public phone service, do you?

 What latest reports would that be?

 7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You dont seriously think that city, state, and federal communication is reliant on public electric companies and public phone service, do you?


What I seriously think is not at issue. Reports have been issued that indicate no contingency for complete failure of the telecommunications networks were in place. If you have any factual information to demonstrate otherwise, I'm listening .... 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What latest reports would that be?


http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/news/releases.html

Please review the release data 9/13/2005 from the Congressional Research Service. 



> "...it would appear that the Governor did take the steps necessary to request emergency and major disaster declarations for the State of Louisiana in anticipation of Hurricane Katrina. (p.11)" The report found that:
> 
> 
> All necessary conditions for federal relief were met on August 28. Pursuant to Section 502 of the Stafford Act, "[t]he declaration of an emergency by the President makes Federal emergency assistance available," and the President made such a declaration on August 28. The public record indicates that several additional days passed before such assistance was actually made available to the State;
> ...


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What I seriously think is not at issue. Reports have been issued that indicate no contingency for complete failure of the telecommunications networks were in place. If you have any factual information to demonstrate otherwise, I'm listening ....


 Geez, once again, what reports? Having no contengency for an issue and having that issue take place or two completely seperate things. I've seen nothing to report that there was an issue with communications (not telecommunications specifiaclly). 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/news/releases.html
> 
> Please review the release data 9/13/2005 from the Congressional Research Service.


 Your not serious are you? Ok, I didn't think it was an issue that the gov. requested aid, I thought that was pretty well known. However, there is more responsibility resting on the state than requesting federal aid. I thought that was apparent. The city of NO (and the state for that matter) have been more than willing to make public their intent to wait on the federal government for rescue, aid, and rebuilding.

 So I guess your right, the state did nothing wrong, its all that Bush guys fault. Besides, "Bush doesn't care about black people". 

  7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2005)

Good Grief ... first you answer my question with another question. I reply and you completely disregard the reply. Get your head out of Bill O'Reilly's ***. 





			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Geez, once again, what reports? Having no contengency for an issue and having that issue take place or two completely seperate things. I've seen nothing to report that there was an issue with communications (not telecommunications specifiaclly).


http://www.securitypipeline.com/170701365



> From an IT perspective, telecommunications were a big part of that failure, Holcomb acknowledged. Landlines and power were down from the beginning of the storm. And though the emergency backup systems for wireless communications in New Orleans were based on natural gas, fire fears forced those systems offline in the immediate wake of Katrina.





			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your not serious are you? Ok, I didn't think it was an issue that the gov. requested aid, I thought that was pretty well known. However, there is more responsibility resting on the state than requesting federal aid. I thought that was apparent. The city of NO (and the state for that matter) have been more than willing to make public their intent to wait on the federal government for rescue, aid, and rebuilding.
> 
> So I guess your right, the state did nothing wrong, its all that Bush guys fault. Besides, "Bush doesn't care about black people".


I am seldom *not* serious. If the Governor requested aid, according to the guidelines spelled out in the legal documents how is it the Federal Government can not respond according to those legal documents? I think the phrase 'intent to wait' is disingenous. When the emergency overwhelms your ability to act, or react, where should one turn for a response. 

That's what the federal government is for; to provide security to its citizens. According the Robert T Stafford Disaster and Emergency Relief Assistance Act, the onus was on the Feds.



> 5143. COORDINATING OFFICERS {Sec. 302}
> 
> Appointment of Federal coordinating officer
> 
> ...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 14, 2005)

Why do we even have to be so technical?

Katrina was clearly visible on our TV screens for days before it hit--and it was big. If the President of the United States of America had flown down to New Orleans, stood on the Riverwalk with a few TV cameras and said, "Folks, this hurricane is the real thing. You must evacuate NOW. If you have no means of leaving, there are buses waiting at the Superdome, at the Convention Center, and in the Garden District departing every 30 minutes for the next two days. The National Guard will assist those physically unable to leave. Please get out now." Now THAT would have been leadership. That would have been a Commander In Chief, as he likes to refer to himself.

Please don't tell me about crowd control. Disney can manage crowd control. The New York City Department of Health has plans to immunize all 8 million of its residents in less than a week in the event of a smallpox outbreak. That's because they PLANNED and PRACTICED it.  And they have qualified people at the helm.


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Good Grief ... first you answer my question with another question. I reply and you completely disregard the reply. Get your head out of Bill O'Reilly's ***.


 Golly gee ... First you say I disregard your reply, then you reply disregarding my own reply. And for the record, I'm not a big fan of O'Reilly's. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://www.securitypipeline.com/170701365


 Thank you, I dont understand why you seem irritated that I ask for a source when you say "reports show". That is an interesting article, one that raises some interesting questions from an interesting _opinion_. It does address the lag in time that the local government took in addressing the federal government, but only offers conjectures as to why that is, offering fear as a reason as well. The article does go on to say:


> However, despite admitting that shortcomings in the government's rescue, recovery, and response efforts...Holcomb said there have been some successes in the last week.


 Thats true, but still he offers little more than thin statements to prove either. 

  If this is your type of source for your information about this disaster, I would advise searching a bit more.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am seldom *not* serious. If the Governor requested aid, according to the guidelines spelled out in the legal documents how is it the Federal Government can not respond according to those legal documents? I think the phrase 'intent to wait' is disingenous. When the emergency overwhelms your ability to act, or react, where should one turn for a response.
> 
> That's what the federal government is for; to provide security to its citizens. According the Robert T Stafford Disaster and Emergency Relief Assistance Act, the onus was on the Feds.


 And what exactly is the local government for? There was a lag in both local and federal action, but we all must remember its tough to move troops or aid in the midst of inclimate weather. Not to mention over terrain destroyed by said weather. Have you ever been through a cat 5 hurricane yoeurself? Its not exactly forgiving. 

  7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 14, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> If the President of the United States of America had flown down to New Orleans, stood on the Riverwalk with a few TV cameras and said, "Folks, this hurricane is the real thing. You must evacuate NOW. If you have no means of leaving, there are buses waiting at the Superdome, at the Convention Center, and in the Garden District departing every 30 minutes for the next two days. The National Guard will assist those physically unable to leave. Please get out now." Now THAT would have been leadership.


 I guess the same could be said for the mayor of New Orleans or the Governor of Lousiana. Although its probably alot more theri job than his, since micromanagement is not really what the President of the United States needs to be doing with his time. 

 7sm


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 14, 2005)

> Although its probably alot more theri job than his, since micromanagement is not really what the President of the United States needs to be doing with his time.


No, he needed to be riding his bicycle with Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2005)

Who is to blame for New Orleans?
The Houston Home Journal (Warner Robins, GA) ^ | 09/07/2005 | William John Hagan



> New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and President Bush will be the prime targets of these attacks. I suspect that those with a vested interest in attacking the President, everyone from anti-war activists to Hilary Clinton, will attempt to place the blame on his shoulders. Unlike, Nagin and Blanco, the President has admitted that he should share in the accountability for the poor response to Katrina. Last week, President Bush readily admitted the actions of the federal government were not acceptable.
> 
> Bushs primary failure was that he did not force Gov. Blanco to request federal help sooner. Bush was powerless to federalize the situation and Blanco failed to request help until August 26th. Given the track records of incompetence of both Blanco and Nagin, the administration should have publicly demanded that Blanco authorize help prior to the 26th.
> 
> ...


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 14, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> No, he needed to be riding his bicycle with Lance Armstrong.


 So I guess you would consider yourself qualified to create a schedule for the President including a ranking system of importance for each item?

 We have to remember that in our eyes when a situation presents itself, its the most important thing in the world. If it affects us in any way, we expect everyone to stop everything else and come take care of that situation. While Karina was being handled there were still terrorist attacks and much, much more to be handled. Thats why the president has a cabinet and not just one man for the entire job.

  7sm


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2005)

Who's to Blame for Delayed Response to Katrina? (ABC News)



> NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 6, 2005  In New Orleans, those in peril and those in power have pointed the finger squarely at the federal government for the delayed relief effort.
> 
> But experts say when natural disasters strike, it is the primary responsibility of state and local governments  not the federal government  to respond.





> New Orleans' own comprehensive emergency plan raises the specter of "having large numbers of people  stranded" and promises "the city  will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas."
> "Special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves," the plan states.
> 
> When Hurricane Katrina hit, however, that plan was not followed completely.
> ...





> Nonetheless, some experts argue that the federal government should have been more proactive.


Which is true too. The problem with the current "blame game" is that people are more concerned with blaming the president for anything and everything rather than really looking at what the most vital breakdowns were. Granted, the post hurricane recovery effort should have been faster and better co-ordinated. But if the City and State gvts. had acted promptly and effectively BEFORE the hurricane struck all those people could have been evacuated.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2005)

Mr. William John Hagan has got his head up O'Reilly's *** too. 



> Unlike, Nagin and Blanco, the President has admitted that he should share in the accountability for the poor response to Katrina. Last week, President Bush readily admitted the actions of the federal government were not acceptable.


President Bush has not 'readily admitted' diddly squat. Let's take a look at his exact quote...



			
				President Bush said:
			
		

> Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility"


Question ... Mr. President, What was the extent that the federal government didn't do its job right? 

For what are you taking responsibility? 

For placing political operatives at the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency? If you are taking responsibility for this item, why was it you did not terminate Mr. Brown from that position.... Why was it that when you were asked about his resignation, you claimed you had no knowledge? How is it 'responsible' for you to not be aware of the workings of the highest levels of your Administration?

How about when FEMA turned away some 500 boats on Wednesday August 31st? Are you taking responsibility for the deaths of those citizens that could have been rescued by those boats? Or, Maybe you're taking responsibility for the FEMA agents that turned away three-truck-loads of water from Wal-Mart.

Well, Mr. President, now that you've noticed the Federal Governments' response was less than adequate; and now that you are taking responsibility for those inadequacies, what actions are you going to take because of it? 

Show me. Don't Tell Me.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2005)

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4802


> *We now know that New Orleans had a plan, but for some reason, it wasnt implemented. It must have been that damn Iraq War that sucked all the funds from the Louisiana state treasury.* In reality, for over six years the state and the city had raked in taxpayer dollars from the federal Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) to the tune of 140 million bucks! How do we know this? Because the leaders of disaster agencies in the state of Louisiana told us so and also showed us how this money was spent. As well see, theyve done quite well feeding at the homeland security trough.
> 
> The Louisiana state-level strategy to respond to disasters or terrorist attacks was submitted to the ODP on 31 December 2003. This was a requirement established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and was the only federal agency in recent memory to actually withhold funds to states until workable, threat-based plans were submitted for review. Colonel Jay Mayeaux of the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Preparedness presented the states strategy and funding streams to train and equip state agencies for disaster response based upon the state plan. These agencies include the Fire Service, Law Enforcement, HazMat (Hazardous Materials), EMS, Public Safety Communications, Public Health, and of course Emergency Management.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marginal (Sep 14, 2005)

Local failures are a local problem.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2005)

President Bush said:
			
		

> Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, *I take responsibility.*


Mr. President, now that you have taken responsibility for the federal governments' inability to do its job right, are you going to either terminate Secretary Chertoff's service, or ask for his resignation?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/krwashbureau/20050914/ts_krwashbureau/_wea_katrina_response_exclusive_1







> Even before the storm struck the Gulf Coast, Chertoff could have ordered federal agencies into action without any request from state or local officials. Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown had only limited authority to do so until about 36 hours after the storm hit, when Chertoff designated him as the "principal federal official" in charge of the storm. ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 7starmantis (Sep 14, 2005)

wow....just wow


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 14, 2005)

Here's a timeline of the events leading up to the disaster.


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


Truly, Rome burned while Nero fiddled.


Read that start to finish.  Blame game?  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## kelly keltner (Sep 15, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, Let's see ... President's Top Aides as named in the article:
> 
> 
> Chief of Staff - Andrew Card
> ...


 You should reread the article then reread what I wrote.
fluf boy


----------



## modarnis (Sep 15, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> No, he needed to be riding his bicycle with Lance Armstrong.




Which occurred on August 20th and is completly irrelevant to this discussion

Armstrong Rides with President


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 15, 2005)

Front page of the USA Today .... *TODAY!*

*Help is on the way, but it's unclear where*
Mix-up and miscommunication complicate hurricane relief efforts
Mimi Hall, Kevin Johnson & Mike Linn

100 Semi-trailers, full of water, ice and other relief supplies, are sitting in a parking lot, in Montgomery, Alabama, waiting for a destination and a 'go order' from FEMA. They have been waiting dispatch information for a week. 

What's more, the government has been paying these truckers $600.00 per day. The truckers are really loving that profit margin - six hundred bucks a day to hang out in a Parking Lot.

Is this relevant to the discussion?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2005)

You obviously have never been part of a military operation, or a disaster relief effort....


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2005)

Side issue..with all the "officials wouldnt let (X) supplies, trucks, boats etc. into the city" stories. Rule 1 of evacuation. Everybody out, no potential new victims in. Soldiers/LEO's are told "nobody without this ID gets past. Period." Somehow all of these stories get turned into some big example of incompetence. Things like this have happened since the dawn of organized human endeavor.

Some guy called Murphy.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You obviously have never been part of a military operation, or a disaster relief effort....


How is my prior experience obvious?

How is my prior experience relevant? 

Why do we, as a nation, continue to give close to 50% of all income tax revenue to an organization that is so incompetent?

$600.00 per day per truck
100 (or more) trucks
$60,000.00 per day for nothing, while people are suffering.​And this is taking place today .... more than two weeks after the hurricane. Three days after Mr. R. David Paulison told us he was going to take care of those displaced by the hurricane.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2005)

Ive worked disaster relief (under a President you probably didnt dislike too much) and stuff like that doesnt surprise me in the least. With the scale of this thing there is going to be cluster ****'s all over the place. All planning and training hopes to accomplish is to minimize them.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 16, 2005)

The planning in this case was abysmal.  The reaction time poor.

As you point out, the government has had previous experience in disaster relief.  It is on THIS administration's watch where the true "cluster blankety blank" took place.   They never screwed it up before.


Everyone has heard this by now...but just in case some missed it:

Q. What is George W. Bush's stance on Roe versus Wade?

A.  He doesn't care HOW the people get out of New Orleans.


It was correctly pointed out, by the way, that Bush wasn't riding with Lance Armstrong when this all went down.  He was eating cake, strumming a guitar, going to bed without answering the governor of Lousiana's requests...

Here's a link to a brief piece commenting on Bush's latest gaffe.  Some here will really like it.  Its rather...scathing:

http://www.drudge.com/news/73382/bill-maher-bush-deserves-medal


Enjoy.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2005)

*Karl Rove will lead the reconstruction effort*.


The Swift Boating of New Orleans.


----------

