# The Blame Game



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2005)

All those who think the response to Hurricane Katrina was the United States finest hour, please ignore this thread. 

All else, we have been asked to put off "The Blame Game", while there is still work to do. Well, I think there is no time like the present. And, I certainly think the President is not able to lead a successful investigation into "what went right, and what didn't" (he couldn't find out Karl Rove spoke to reports for two years?)

So, who's at fault.

My Vote. 

The President. 
It's August. In the early weeks of July, the entire White House maps out a low-key itinerary to pretend a 'Working Vacation' is about to take place. (Remember, you never introduce a new product before September). He allowed his entire administration take the month off. A communications director was getting married in Europe. Chief of Staff was in Maine. Veep was in Wyoming. Nobody was around to tell him what to do.

Thinking back at Michael Moore's footage of the President in the classroom ... for seven minutes .... while a student read 'My Pet Goat'. Man, it seems Mr. Moore in the proverbial nail on the head. 

This time, there was no one to usher the President to the car, so he just kept dancing to the steps laid out in July. 

Sure, there is lots of other incompetency... "Brownie" ... 'Chertoff" ... Watch fo the Memo's.  Barbara Bush clearly demonstrated how her son did not become a blabbering idiot without some genetic material. 

But, no, all fingers point to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Anyone else?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 6, 2005)

This was a unique situation--unprecedented in modern times. I'm reluctant to assign blame.


----------



## Knarfan (Sep 6, 2005)

I know that the Govenor made a huge mistake by not ordering a mandatory evacuation soon enough. BTW Bush did advise the Gov. to do so more then once. I think that there is plenty of blame to go around but really there was an obvious lack of communication & it still continues. I think that everyone seems overwhelmed from the Pres on down the line. I don't think that you can assign to much blame on any one person at this point it is a very complicated problem & really there is no easy answers. I think that we need to forget the politics for awhile & concentrate on the real issues the system failed that means lots of people made mistakes.


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 6, 2005)

Mikey, step back, and listen for a sec. 
1. Michael Moore had it wrong. It was not 7 minutes, it was 5 minutes. 
2. Those 5 minutes wouldn't have done squat. 
3. The teacher of the classroom, though she didn't vote for Bush, felt his presence at the school was comforting. 

Enough bashing that insane sack of crap who has far less education than the guy he's bashing. 

How about these points:

1. FEMA assessed New Orleans for a worst case storm. The city was ill-prepared. They knew this in 2001. The levees were unable to handle anything above a low level category 3. The state and city governments knew this. 
2. There was time to get people out. There was at least 5 days warning, and there was free transportation provided. Even if a person has no car, and decides not to take a bus, a human being walks at the average 4 miles an hour. If a person walks 3 hours a day (yes, just 3), they could probably have been out of the city in 3 or 4 days (though I'm not sure of New Orleans' size).
3. When civilians with boats went in to help get people out, THEY WERE SHOT AT! Rescue helicopters which weren't designed for warzones were shot at. The only way that rescuers could get in to help people in these areas safely is if they were part of a large convoy with military presence. It takes time to coordinate rescue efforts with military presence. 
4. The mayor of New Orleans skipped town. When his city was in crisis, he demanded help and screamed that he wasn't getting it. His police force turned in their badges. Given that he may not have prevented all the walkouts, he was nowhere to be found when leadership was needed. Can you imagine what would have happened if Rudy did the same thing on 9/11? 

Just chew over these things for a while.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 6, 2005)

It's telling that the administration said "Well, they didn't ask for help fast enough" when the fact that a state of emergency had long been announced is a matter of public record.

FEMA's apparently run by idiots to compound matters. Cluster the food in one spot with the expectation that anyone who wants it will just have to suck it up and amble on over, then strongly object when the millitary starts air lifting it to the folks in town...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

A couple of points to make.


Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Defense, and sitting member of the President's Cabinet said on Meet the Press, Sunday morning:
"I remember on Tuesday morning picking up newspapers and I saw headlines, 'New Orleans Dodged The Bullet.'"​With that statement in mind, and with that speaker in mind, I submit the following link: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/archive.asp?fpArchive=083005 - withover 400 front pages from August 30th, there doesn't seem to be one with a headline that 'New Orleans Dogded the Bullet'.



Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and direct report to Michael Chertoff did not seek to dispatch FEMA personnel to the affected areas until 5 hours after landfall of Hurricane Katrina. Further, his request was for 1,000 personnel and they could take two days to arrive. His request asked for an additional 1,000 personnel to arrive within a week. Brown said that among duties of these employees was to "convey a positive image" about the government's response for victims.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Mikey, step back, and listen for a sec.
> . . . .
> 2. There was time to get people out. There was at least 5 days warning, and there was free transportation provided.
> . . . . .
> Just chew over these things for a while.


deadhand31 ... there is so much that is so wrong with your post. I'm wondering if that water you're carrying ever gets heavy. 

Let's just address this one item.

The hurricane made landfall at 7:00 AM on Monday August 29.
The hurrican was predicted to be Category 4 and to make landfall in the Mississippi / Louisiana at 4:00 PM on Friday August 26. 

You math skills are horrible ... That is not 5 days warning. That is approximatel 63 hours ... which is less than three days. 

And, let's look at the important, but damaging, press releases from the Bush Administration ... they tend to occur on Friday afternoons, where they are likely to get the least amount of press coverage. 

And, let's look at people who are poor, who don't have 24-7 access to the news media, because they don't have, say, a television.

So, I'll chew on your facts ... if you'll chew on reality.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 7, 2005)

Well, I for one cannot blame the president for a natural disaster. I'm sure there are those who will try to make that stretch.

I, speaking from the viewpoint of personal responsibility, think those people should have gotten the heck outta Dodge, days before it hit landfall when they knew it was coming straight for them.

For those that reallllly couldn't get out, I feel sorry that they did not get the food and water they needed until days later. But I wonder, how many would find a way out of their house if a murderer with a knife was breaking in? Or if they knew one was up the street and they had time to make a run for it. Well, there'd be a lot less people in the Stuperdome. (Should they rebuild it, that's what it should be called.)

As for using the military to bring food and water, I think they should have used the air force. Then they could have dropped it from above without the worry of being shot at. Who can blame some of these public service groups for not rushing in while the news (again, one of the groups who believe it's all the President's fault) is portraying the scene as an unruly mob, blasting, raping and beating each other.

If we're going to look for blame, the Mayor shouyld be fired first. Then we'll go up the chain.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If we're going to look for blame, the Mayor shouyld be fired first. Then we'll go up the chain.


MisterMike, you tend to be thoughtful. And you're thoughts here are not unreasonable. Certainly, the Mayor is the least skilled politician in the mix. His election was a surprise win two years ago. I don't think he had any politcal experience before running for mayor (although I could be wrong on that). 

I might suggest that you review the 'National Response Plan'. This is contract between the Department of Homeland Security and the states and cities in the event of an emergency. This contract spells out very specifically who has primary responsibility in the event of a disaster (Incident of National Significance). 

Now, I don't know if the Mayor was aware of the National Response Plan or not. But, if you review the signatories to the document, it is apparent that several power brokers were aware of it ...because they signed it.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 7, 2005)

The NRP base plan is to be phased in over a year, starting from December 2004. It is not implimented as of yet.



> Phase I  Transitional Period (0 to 60 days): This
> 60-day timeframe is intended to provide a transitional
> period for departments and agencies and other
> organizations to modify training, designate staffing of
> ...


Role of the governor:



> As a States chief executive, the Governor is responsible
> for the public safety and welfare of the people of that
> State or territory. The Governor:
> &#9632; Is responsible for coordinating State resources to
> ...


From what I got, that document is more of a template for structuring how local, state and federal agencies will work together in the event of a domestic incident. It does not spell out timetables and when to pick up the phone and ask for help.


----------



## BrandiJo (Sep 7, 2005)

I think the only people who should be blamed are the people who didnt follow orders and leave when they were told to. I think its very sad that help took awhile to get to them but again it was their own faults for not leaving. I do think the government could have responded better but everything could have been better this is the worst stom the US has seen in a long time i think.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

Priorities ... 



			
				The New York Times said:
			
		

> PENSACOLA, Fla., Sept. 6 - Two Navy helicopter pilots and their crews returned from New Orleans on Aug. 30 expecting to be greeted as lifesavers after ferrying more than 100 hurricane victims to safety.
> Instead, their superiors chided the pilots, Lt. David Shand and Lt. Matt Udkow, at a meeting the next morning for rescuing civilians .........
> 
> But as the two helicopters were heading back home, the crews picked up a radio transmission from the Coast Guard saying helicopters were needed near the University of New Orleans to help with rescue efforts, the two pilots said.
> ...


----------



## Marginal (Sep 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and direct report to Michael Chertoff did not seek to dispatch FEMA personnel to the affected areas until 5 hours after landfall of Hurricane Katrina. Further, his request was for 1,000 personnel and they could take two days to arrive. His request asked for an additional 1,000 personnel to arrive within a week. Brown said that among duties of these employees was to "convey a positive image" about the government's response for victims.


Rock solid qualifications too. He was formerly a failed horse show organizer. Lucky Bush recognized his true calling.


----------



## Mark L (Sep 7, 2005)

There's plenty of blame to go around, but laying it all on Bush is unfair, although certainly convenient for his critics.  The top guy _is_ ultimately responsible, but as already stated, start with the mayor and work your way up the food chain.

In any organization the top dog gets more credit for success, and more blame for failure than they truly deserve.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

Seems, where ever the President goes, there is much activity, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

But it makes a great photo. 

Firefighters ... 


> "But as specific orders began arriving to the firefighters in Atlanta, a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew's first assignment: *to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.*"


Bulldozers ...


> 2 minutes ago the President drove past in his convoi.  But what has happened in Biloxi all day long is truly unbelievable. Suddenly recovery units appeared, suddenly bulldozers were there, those hadn't been seen here all the days before, and this in an area, in which it really wouldn't be necessary to do a big clean up, because far and wide nobody lives here anymore, the people are more inland in the city. The President travels with a press baggage [big crew].  This press baggage got very beautiful pictures which are supposed to say, that the President was here and help is on the way, too.  The extent of the natural disaster shocked me, but the extent of the staging is shocking me at least the same way.


Other Heavy equipment ... 


> But perhaps the greatest disappointment stands at the breached 17th Street levee. Touring this critical site yesterday with the President, I saw what I believed to be a real and significant effort to get a handle on a major cause of this catastrophe. Flying over this critical spot again this morning, less than 24 hours later, it became apparent that yesterday we witnessed a hastily prepared stage set for a Presidential photo opportunity; and the desperately needed resources we saw were this morning reduced to a single, lonely piece of equipment.


----------



## Knarfan (Sep 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Seems, where ever the President goes, there is much activity, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> But it makes a great photo.
> 
> ...


Who was responsible for putting people in the superdome with criminals:murders,rapist & not much in the way of food or water? The local officials messed up BIG-TIME! Your starting to sound like a Michael Moore wanta-be 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 . Tell the whole story, not just the parts you like. Truth is the local government is just alittle corrupt so don't turn it into a Bush-bash.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> Who was responsible for putting people in the superdome with criminals:murders,rapist & not much in the way of food or water? The local officials messed up BIG-TIME! Your starting to sound like a Michael Moore wanta-be . Tell the whole story, not just the parts you like. Truth is the local government is just alittle corrupt so don't turn it into a Bush-bash.


Please tell me, how many murders and rapists were in the Superdome? 

How many murders and rapes actually took place in the Superdome?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1563470,00.html



> New Orleans police chief Eddie Compass said last night: "We don't have any substantiated rapes. We will investigate if the individuals come forward."
> 
> 
> And while many claim they happened, no witnesses, survivors or survivors' relatives have come forward.
> Nor has the source for the story of the murdered babies, or indeed their bodies, been found.


----------



## Knarfan (Sep 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please tell me, how many murders and rapists were in the Superdome?
> 
> How many murders and rapes actually took place in the Superdome?


Well I'm pretty sure that there was 2 or 3 rapes & one of the girls was 13 years old. After the rape of the 13 year older occured the rapest was then murdered by a vigil anti crowd. Pretty cool huh? I hope he died a slow death! Evidently, Hardened criminals where released & aloud to rome free with all the common folk. In case you didn't know I don't think the locals supplied any police protection in the superdome. It was a very bad situation that the woman, children,the sick & elderly where put into. Also I'v heard numerous people on the news who where there telling the same story. I didn't hear any mention that Bush was in attendance or the Gov or the Mayor or Eddie or food or water. I guess Bush is the only liar in the world? Maybe Eddie should check some of the bodys that have been floating in the water for about a week. Oh yeh one more thing what about the cops who did stay behind? They didn't get much help from the Mayor or Govoner? I guess thats Bushes fault also? If you want to pass judgement you have to start with the local authorities & then maybe hand some of the blame off to Bush & the Feds but, don't give me Michael Moorer.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> Well I'm pretty sure that there was 2 or 3 rapes & one of the girls was 13 years old. After the rape of the 13 year older occured the rapest was then murdered by a vigil anti crowd. Pretty cool huh? I hope he died a slow death! Evidently, Hardened criminals where released & aloud to rome free with all the common folk. In case you didn't know I don't think the locals supplied any police protection in the superdome. It was a very bad situation that the woman, children,the sick & elderly where put into. Also I'v heard numerous people on the news who where there telling the same story. I didn't hear any mention that Bush was in attendance or the Gov or the Mayor or Eddie or food or water. I guess Bush is the only liar in the world? Maybe Eddie should check some of the bodys that have been floating in the water for about a week.


Oh, yeah. ... we're all real big on vigilantism here. It's so cool when justice is dispensed by the mob. 

Except ... the Police Chief has stated there are no "substantiated" rapes. 

There was security at the Superdome. It certainly was not insufficient. It is so comforting to know how quickly FEMA came in to Manage the Federal Emergency. Of course, the local police officers also lost their houses, couldn't contact their families, and were just as ignorant of what was going on around them as everyone else. 

And, be aware of the 'wallpaper effect', where media report the same story over and over again; show the same video footage over and over again (without a date time stamp); are you *sure* it was 'numerous people' telling the same story ... and not the same people telling a story.


----------



## Knarfan (Sep 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, yeah. ... we're all real big on vigilantism here. It's so cool when justice is dispensed by the mob.
> 
> Except ... the Police Chief has stated there are no "substantiated" rapes.
> 
> ...


Am I sure? probably not, I wasn't there & neither where you. Are you blameing the media now? The media was there for aleast part of the time. As far as the cops that stayed behind, thats my point they risk their lives not knowing if their own families were alive & they got screwed by the local government. So basically your argument is the federal government (Bush) failed to responed quickly enough? I can live with that but, what happened before it was their turn to act? Oh yeh, the hurricane and????? Oh yeh, I'm not really into vigilantism but in that case I might have sided with the mob. I'm out. Time will tell....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> So basically your argument is the* federal government (Bush) failed to responed quickly *enough? I can live with that but, ...


I wonder how many people *couldn't live* with that.


And isn't he the guy who argued that *HE* could protect *US *better than Kerry a year or so ago?


----------



## Marginal (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Facelesscowardwithnospine wrote_:Maybe you should take a course on mass casualty incident command and see how things really work. Then you will understand how the mayor and police chief are to blame for not setting up a command structure


Yeah, 'cause FEMA's contolled by the mayor.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2005)

*Its Time to Stop Beating Around the Bush*



By now, it should be clear that the way our country handled hurricane Katrina is a national embarrassment.  The fact that 25,000 body bags have been shipped Louisiana should clue people into the magnitude of this disaster.  People who are attempting to attach blame to specific individuals are making a mistake.  



Blame, in this case, spreads thinly.  Local, state and federal officials share it.  However, the root cause of the bungling of our governmental hierarchy is discernable.  It lies with the very philosophy that currently drives our governmental policy.  The No New Taxes - Personal Responsibility  Small Government, is the real culprit behind the mishandling of this disaster.  It is the killer of what could turn out to be tens of thousands of people.



Cutting Taxes was the cause behind the lack of infrastructure to hold floodwaters and storms at bay.  Personal Responsibility was the reason why evacuation orders were issued and those with means left and those without were trapped.  Small Government was the reason behind the paralysis of our thinly stretched, tightly budgeted, ultimately resourceless governmental services.  They were unable to react when the storm moved in and the floodwaters rose.  



And this was a localized emergency.  Could you imagine a national emergency!  For instance, another Great Depression?  Our entire country would be paralyzed and the sole reason would be the very philosophy that drove us.  If there are any doubts, you can read all about it.  History reveals that the same beliefs that drive us now were espoused in the 1920s, by Herbert Hoover.  The worst years of the Depression were a direct result.



As the dead roll in from Katrina, we need to look at their faces.  They were the poor.  They were the sick.  They were the old.  They were the black.  They were the most vulnerable members of our society and our government failed them.  This is a reality check for the American people and a warning.  If government is meant to serve and protect us all, we must be prepared to sacrifice.  A small government that encourages personal responsibility over social and cuts its revenue is unable to fulfill the very purpose of government.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The No New Taxes - Personal Responsibility  Small Government, is the real culprit behind the mishandling of this disaster. It is the killer of what could turn out to be tens of thousands of people.


A blogger on the huffingtonpost put it this way: 



> The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is _Rely on individual discipline and initiative._
> The central principle: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods.
> Its the difference between _Were-all-in-this-together_ and _Youre-on-your-own-buddy_.
> Its the difference between _Every citizen is entitled to protection_ and _Youre only entitled to what you can afford_.
> Its the difference between connection and separation.


I have said it before, on this very site. 

The current administration was voted for by the American public (I couldn't say that after the 2000 election). *We* chose this government. We have gotten exactly what we have asked for (except they put off the Estate Tax vote - that's got to piss off Paris Hilton). 

George Bush leads a government of _'You're-on-your-own-buddy_'; '_You're only entitled to what you can afford._' He represents us, and is giving us exactly what we asked for. 

In the end, it's the folks in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama that ended up reaping what we, as a country, have sown. 

Although, it really burns me that Barbour is looking for a federal hand out .... he has always been one of the 'starve-the-beast' crowd.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The No New Taxes - Personal Responsibility  Small Government, is the real culprit behind the mishandling of this disaster. It is the killer of what could turn out to be tens of thousands of people.


I think it's the Tax and Spend - Welfare Mind - Big Gov't Will Save Us All attitude that left these people sitting on their roofs waiting to be saved.

"I don't gotta get out - someone will be by in a day or so to give me some 'High-Quality H2O'. " -- oh, and a debit card.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think it's the Tax and Spend - Welfare Mind - Big Gov't Will Save Us All attitude that left these people sitting on their roofs waiting to be saved.
> 
> "I don't gotta get out - someone will be by in a day or so to give me some 'High-Quality H2O'. " -- oh, and a debit card.


MisterMike ... 

you do remember that whole, 'Republican Revolution', don't you? Contract with America ... Gingrich ... redistricting ... welfare reform ... permanent Republican Majority ... 'Drown the baby in the bathtub' ... Supreme Court Picking a President in 2000 (do you think some of the justices are pissed off now ... with Roberts headed to the big chair?)

Tax and Spend is code word for 'Democrat' (even if it isn't accurate). We are out of power ... don't you try to blame this on us. 

And who's the fattest person in line at the government trough ... (other than Limbaugh) ... Barbour.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2005)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html


Seems the President of the United States ... when declaring a state of emergency for Louisiana ... forgot that New Orleans was part of Louisiana.

Jefferson Parrish .. St. Charles Parrish .. Orleans Parrish .. St. James Parrish .. St. John the Baptist Parrish .. West Baton Rouge Parrish .. and quite a few others seem to be missing from the Press release above. 

Northern Louisiana was covered though .. (whew) .. Just the coastline was ******.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 8, 2005)

The President and FEMA.  There should have been troops, national guard, buses and boats in there BEFORE the hurricane hit.  I know so many good people with the NYC Dept of Health who are highly qualified who could have gotten the job done.  Instead Bush appointed his buddy, "Brownie" who had no experience--and it shows.

People voted for this president because they thought he could keep us safe.  If he can't even manage a predictable natural disaster which gave us plenty of warning, it's pretty clear we're on our own in the event of a surprise terrorist attack.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> People voted for this president because they thought he could keep us safe. If he can't even manage a predictable natural disaster which gave us plenty of warning, it's pretty clear we're on our own in the event of a surprise terrorist attack.


Well, hell, when its every _man_ for themselves, who do you think is going to run things...


----------



## Marginal (Sep 8, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think it's the Tax and Spend - Welfare Mind - Big Gov't Will Save Us All attitude that left these people sitting on their roofs waiting to be saved.
> 
> "I don't gotta get out - someone will be by in a day or so to give me some 'High-Quality H2O'. " -- oh, and a debit card.



"The levies won't break"

-Dubya Bush

"The levies are fine."

-Brownie doing a rootin' job


----------



## Knarfan (Sep 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I wonder how many people *couldn't live* with that.
> 
> 
> And isn't he the guy who argued that *HE* could protect *US *better than Kerry a year or so ago?


Mike,
I meant that I could live with your point of view. I really don't know for sure what the feds time line should have been but, I also said that all branches of the gov could have done a better job. I just don't think Bush deserves all or even most of the blame. I think that this is where our opinions differ. I think the locals may be more to blame, I'm talking about the Gov & Mayor. I just don't think that they responded properly before the hurricane & obviously the people who refused to listen to the evacuation orders really turned it into a chaotic situation & the police were left holding the bag & it didn't seem like anyone was helping them. Basically what I'm saying is I don't think that there was enough leadership within the local government. The Gov & Mayor should be working together not against each other.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 8, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> The President and FEMA. There should have been troops, national guard, buses and boats in there BEFORE the hurricane hit.


Check your facts. They were in place and more were being mobilized.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> Mike,
> I meant that I could live with your point of view. I really don't know for sure what the feds time line should have been but, I also said that all branches of the gov could have done a better job. I just don't think Bush deserves all or even most of the blame. I think that this is where our opinions differ. I think the locals may be more to blame, I'm talking about the Gov & Mayor. I just don't think that they responded properly before the hurricane & obviously the people who refused to listen to the evacuation orders really turned it into a chaotic situation & the police were left holding the bag & it didn't seem like anyone was helping them. Basically what I'm saying is I don't think that there was enough leadership within the local government. The Gov & Mayor should be working together not against each other.


I think the Governor and the Mayor were working before hand. However, the enormity of the disaster easily overwhelmed what they were able to do.

So, let me rattle off a couple of points which may, or may not, be relevant.

The New Orleans disaster plans always anticipated that approximately 20% of the citizens would not be able to, or would not choose to, evacuate. It doesn't matter whether the Mayor, Governor, or President says you must leave; some people are not going to leave all of their wordly possessions behind, unattended. 

Here is a letter from Governor Blanco to the President. 
http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976



> Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. I am specifically requesting emergency protective measures, direct Federal Assistance, Individual and Household Program (IHP) assistance, Special Needs Program assistance, and debris removal.


The Airlines (Federal Aviation Adminstration) told callers on Saturday, that all Sunday flights would be able to depart as scheduled. Many people were stranded when the Sunday flights were cancelled. 

The emergency shelters in New Orleans were opened on Sunday at noontime. I don't know how long it was anticipated the shelters would need to function, but I am guessing even the worst scenario did not anticipate 5 days with no power, no food, no water. New Orleans Emergency plan anticipated the need to shelter 100,000 citizens. 
http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26

The President declared a state of emergency for Louisiana on August 27th.

This declaration, by its very issuance, made Hurrican Katrina an '*Incident of National Significance*'.

An *Incident of National Significance* is a specific item from the National Response Plan. 

The National Response Plan makes the _Department of Homeland Security_ the primary coordinator of all emergency proceedures for the *Incident of National Significance*.

The National Response Plan was effective in December of 2004, and on March 1st, it became the 'official federal government rules' on how to handle a catastrophe. If the Hurricane was not an *Incident of National Significance*, then indeed the Mayor and the Governor would be more on the hook ... but, you can't have it both ways; either it is an *Incident of National Significance*, which means DHS is the 'go-to-guy' {read FEMA}, or the Hurricane is not an Incident of National Significance ... in which case, I want my money back ... what the hell is DHS doing anyhow? 

Yes ... the NRP says everything is handled at the lowest level possible (_All incidents are handled at the lowest possible organizational and jurisdictional level._) This is what all the Administration spin masters are saying .... but keep reading the paragraph .... where it continues (_For those events that rise to the level of an Incident of National Significance, the Department of Homeland Security provides operational and/or resource coordination for Federal support to on-scene incident command structures._) 

On Monday, August 29, while the hurricane was destroying 4 of the President's favorite red states .... he was eating birthday cake on a runway with a onetime political foe. Gee, that's thoughtful.

On Tuesday, August 30, Nero fiddled while Rome burned.



P.S. More on the director of FEMA.

Seems that Mr. Brown has done an extensive job of 'padding' his resume. The New Republic (why do they Hate America) has an expose about his real 'legal' backgound. 


> Brown's biography on FEMA's website reports that he's a graduate of the Oklahoma City University School of Law. This is not, to put it charitably, a well-known institution. For example, I've been a law professor for the past 15 years and have never heard of it. Of more relevance is the fact that, until 2003, the school was not even a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS)--the organization that, along with the American Bar Association, accredits the nation's law schools. Most prospective law students won't even consider applying to a non-AALS law school unless they have no other option, because many employers have a policy of not considering graduates of non-AALS institutions.
> 
> Normally, an attorney practicing law in a state for ten years would have left a record of his experience in public documents. But just about the only evidence of Brown's Colorado legal career is the Web page he submitted to Findlaw.com, an Internet site for people seeking legal representation.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 8, 2005)

> Check your facts. They were in place and more were being mobilized.


I DID check my facts.  Everything I've read tells me that buses, National Guard, and troops were NOT evacuating people from New Orleans BEFORE the hurricane hit.  The Superdome, which had long been expected to be used in the event of a major emergency, was NOT stocked with food or water.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 8, 2005)

The thing people always fail to realize is that when you bring in thousands of troops you have to transport, shelter, feed, water and care for those troops just like you do for the people they are evacuating. Unless there was pre-staged and pre planned operations in place for a long time before this hit, this time lag was bound to happen....


----------



## Knarfan (Sep 8, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I DID check my facts. Everything I've read tells me that buses, National Guard, and troops were NOT evacuating people from New Orleans BEFORE the hurricane hit. The Superdome, which had long been expected to be used in the event of a major emergency, was NOT stocked with food or water.


Just one more thing to add to the Superdome point. It was reported today that they have discovered severly mutilated bodys at the SUPERDOME location. Looks like they have enough evidence to launch the investigation into the rape & murder claims 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . Fox news is supposed to interview a medical doctor that was at the Superdome during the hurricane. It sounds to me like he is going to confirm alot of the stories that we have heard in the media. Interview is schedualed for Fri.


----------



## Knarfan (Sep 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The thing people always fail to realize is that when you bring in thousands of troops you have to transport, shelter, feed, water and care for those troops just like you do for the people they are evacuating. Unless there was pre-staged and pre planned operations in place for a long time before this hit, this time lag was bound to happen....


Sounds logical to me.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Sep 8, 2005)

One thing that occurs to me is that I didn't think FEMA or the Federal Government usually get involved until *after* something has happened.  Usually a disaster hits, the governor gets out the National Guard for his state, if it's really bad then he declares a State-leve State-Of-Emergency or whatever and asks the Feds for help.  Granted that's usually for things like Tornado or Earthquake where there isn't much warning, but I really don't remember there being much coordinated federal response to, say Hurricane Andrew prior to it hitting.

 I think this is the first natural disaster I've seen where people are saying after the fact that the federal government should've done more before.


----------



## Knarfan (Sep 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think the Governor and the Mayor were working before hand. However, the enormity of the disaster easily overwhelmed what they were able to do.
> 
> So, let me rattle off a couple of points which may, or may not, be relevant.
> 
> ...


I think your points are relevent. No argument here.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The thing people always fail to realize is that when you bring in thousands of troops you have to transport, shelter, feed, water and care for those troops just like you do for the people they are evacuating. Unless there was pre-staged and pre planned operations in place for a long time before this hit, this time lag was bound to happen....


What the hell is 'pre-staged'? 

What the hell is 'pre-planned'?

Either a thing staged or it ins't. It is planned or it isn't.

And the people who know, knew it was staged or planned appropriately.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1108268&page=1



> FEMA Was Unprepared for Katrina Relief Effort, Insiders Say
> 
> All of us were just shaking our heads and saying, 'This isn't going to be enough, and the director has to know this isn't going to be enough.' But nothing more seemed to be happening," said Leo Bosner, president of the FEMA Headquarters Employees Union


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> One thing that occurs to me is that I didn't think FEMA or the Federal Government usually get involved until *after* something has happened. Usually a disaster hits, the governor gets out the National Guard for his state, if it's really bad then he declares a State-leve State-Of-Emergency or whatever and asks the Feds for help. Granted that's usually for things like Tornado or Earthquake where there isn't much warning, but I really don't remember there being much coordinated federal response to, say Hurricane Andrew prior to it hitting.
> 
> I think this is the first natural disaster I've seen where people are saying after the fact that the federal government should've done more before.


FearlessFreep ... I think your reaction may be quite natural, especially for those of us who don't live this stuff every day. 

I have learned in the last 10 days, that in fact, there is quite a bit that does go on *before* a hurricane hits. The President declared the area to be a State of Emergency, to enable federal funding to flow to the area *before* the Hurricane made landfall. The Governors declared states of emergency and petitioned the President for Federal Assistance *before* the hurricane made landfall. 

Would I have known those things before this thing came crashing down around us? Nope!

But one big difference between Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Katrina is that September 11th changed everything (or so we have been told). We assembed several bastard-step-children of Federal Agencies into the 'DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY!'. This department is supposed to make sure we are, well, secure in the homeland (does anyone else think that's a stupid word?).

Honestly, before September 11th .... FEMA was a great plot device for Fox Muldar ... and occasionally a heroic organization (thinkin' of the floods in the carolina's).

But take a closer look at the Red Tape that FEMA and DHS created around this disaster. Florida (a state with some experience in hurricanes) wanted to send 500 flat bottomed air-boats to New Orleans, and FEMA made it too difficult to actualy accomplish. Should somebody be screaming bloody murder over that? And that can't be laid at the foot of the Mayor, regardless of Mr. Rove's talking points. 

Really ... Google  "Katrina FEMA red tape", it's sad.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 8, 2005)

Try a google on "prestaged military equipment" before you make a fool of yourself....


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> All those who think the response to Hurricane Katrina was the United States finest hour, please ignore this thread.
> 
> All else, we have been asked to put off "The Blame Game", while there is still work to do. Well, I think there is no time like the present. And, I certainly think the President is not able to lead a successful investigation into "what went right, and what didn't" (he couldn't find out Karl Rove spoke to reports for two years?)
> 
> ...



what a suprise to see you're blaming the president, again    you're finger pointing gets old, but i certainly wouldn't expect any less coming from you.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007219

i posted the above link in another thread relating to this topic, it has even more significance here.

it's quite simple (for most intelligent beings), the local and state government wrote an evacuation plan, even practiced this plan (to complete failure) over the last year.  their plan failed miserably.  so who's fault is it...?  the executive branch of the gov't...?  how so...?

which is more fathomable:  blaming the president for post-Katrina issues because he's the president.  or...blaming the president for post-Katrina issues because it's much easier to blame him because you don't like him.

your reasoning is ignorant and your blame is misplaced.  the proof is in the pudding.  your sideline critical finger-pointing in a time like this is disgusting, but it's certainly your right to be that way.  it's a good thing a majority of this country sees otherwise.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 8, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I DID check my facts.  Everything I've read tells me that buses, National Guard, and troops were NOT evacuating people from New Orleans BEFORE the hurricane hit.  The Superdome, which had long been expected to be used in the event of a major emergency, was NOT stocked with food or water.



you're right.  but the fault does not lie with the bush administration.  your statement rings true and all of the above stated responsibilities lie within state and local gov't.  

i'm not taking a wild guess in making that assumption.  i do it for a living (full-time missouri army national guard and MO-SEMA).  

i take all this "federal gov't finger pointing" to much offense, because i know better.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 8, 2005)

It's alright Sapper. I'm used to seeing it. Those desperate to regain control would rather complain and point fingers to hinder any efforts the current administration can do for the victims of this natural disaster. It's actually easier than getting off their duffs and doing something constructive. So far we've seen:

1) conspiracy - Bush caused this disaster by not supporting the Kyoto agreement
2) racism - Bush's conjured storm targeted blacks
3) rights violations - Bush and his cronies stifled the free press/covered up the severity/played it down, etc.


It's the same cards played over and over no matter what the circumstances, and those of us with common sense can shrug it off. As for prospective members of the opposing party, I think the menu is looking less and less appetizing. When you can't win anything with facts, better ideas or good character, this is what you resort to.

But good luck in '08. At this rate I'm sure they'll have gained many more intellgient followers.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> your reasoning is ignorant and your blame is misplaced. the proof is in the pudding. your sideline critical finger-pointing in a time like this is disgusting, but it's certainly your right to be that way. it's a good thing a majority of this country sees otherwise.


Sapper6 ... this comes to you from the Whitehouse ...Not me, and my 'ignorant' reasoning .... Pay close attention to the date ..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html 

_For Immediate Release_
_Office of the Press Secretary_
_August 27, 2005 _
_[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Statement on Federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana *[/font]_

_The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing. _

_The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate *all* disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures,_



​OK ... so, according to that press release, from somebody, somewhere, the Department of Homeland Security was authorized to coordinate *ALL* ... *EVERYTHING* ... *ALPHA-OMEGA* ... *THE KIT AND KABOODLE*.. relief efforts.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Now, Let's look at Mr. Williams...

It seems Mr. Williams was, once upon a time, a Washington State legislator. He failed in his campaign for congress. He failed in his campaign for Governor of Washington state. He runs a 'think-tank' (conservative by nature), that's primary mission seems to be to dismantel Washington Educatons Association (a teachers' union of some sort, perhaps).

Why exactly does his opinion count for ****? What the **** does he know about disaster relief efforts?

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofileprinterfriendly.php?recipientID=106

If you ask me ... and by posting the link to his ******** remarks ... it seems Mr. Williams is attempting to become a player in a patronage organization; the Republican Party. A little sucking up to Karl Rove can't hurt, now, can it?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 8, 2005)

Uhhh..It says FEMA is responsible for "coordinating" all relief efforts. That doesnt relieve local and state gvt. of all responsibility.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Uhhh..It says FEMA is responsible for "coordinating" all relief efforts. That doesnt relieve local and state gvt. of all responsibility.


That was never my claim.

However, looking at the situation on the ground, by Tuesday morning, the government of the city of New Orleans was *unable *to affect meaningful support; cuz the town was underwater and without power.

But, I suppose it's OK to continue to Blame them; just because they have no power, and can't move freely throughout the city, why should that let them off the hook.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

From 'All the news that's fit to print'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?ei=5090&en=aa642b8c89c27c01&ex=1283918400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1126238795-dGCl9WlaN8lbkCHBy9hw2w&pagewanted=print
_The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, *the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated*._


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Why hadnt New Orleans Pre-planned this event or pre-staged supplies? Why didnt the state gvt. have this planned out way in advance? Why wasnt the fed. government prodding the state and the city to get on the ball? This was a game of russian roulette that started the cylinder spinning back at the turn of the century. 

BTW: You "Plan" to known intelligence. i.e. the troops need this much material by this time in this location so we will stage it there. "Pre-staging/planning" is what you do for general preparedness. i.e. The odds are this city will be hit by a disaster. Lets "pre-stage" supplies, fuel, food, water etc. in these various warehouses and monitor them regularly to make sure they are there when we need them. When we need them we grab them and "stage" them in the areas where they will be accessible.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Hell how many Americans built bomb shelters out of fear of the A-bomb but nobody in the Big Easy had a "get out of dodge" plan when they live in a city where you can look up at the bottom of ships as they pass by??

For years, libs. have been telling Americans that the government can provide for you, will provide for you and you deserve to be provided for. Bull. Terrorists killed 3,000 on 9/
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





11. Poverty stands at 12 percent, despite trillions spent on Great Society programs over the last 40 years. And acts of nature can kill you if you can't get out of the way. Big suprise..nobody could see this coming eh?

Hurricane Katrina once again showed the world that government, be it state or federal, is fallible and indeed can be overwhelmed. Depend on yourself. Get educated. Get smart. Get personal resources. Get off of "public dependence". That is the lesson of Katrina.

And yes, all the local LEO's, EMT's etc have families and homes in the same area. They have to worry about all the same things the "victims" do and have to provide service to these victims at the same time....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hell how many Americans built bomb shelters out of fear of the A-bomb but nobody in the Big Easy had a "get out of dodge" plan when they live in a city where you can look up at the bottom of ships as they pass by??
> 
> And yes, all the local LEO's, EMT's etc have families and homes in the same area. They have to worry about all the same things the "victims" do and have to provide service to these victims at the same time....


OK ... play it this way ... Let's say a Canadian company in St. Catherine's  has a major chemical disaster, threatening everything downwind of it. 

How easy do you think it would be to *evacuate* Buffalo? Let's say the mayor says ... "OK, everybody to Erie. Now!" 

What percentage of your own city would leave their homes behind? 

I bet no amount 'planning' or 'staging' of goods would make a Buffalo evacuation any more successful than that in New Orleans. But, let's go one further .... let's assume the fire department is incapacitated. Let's assume the Police department can't move through the city? 

No matter how you slice it ... it's a cluster-****. 

But, who needs a federal government to look out for its citizens anyhow.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Environmentalists to blame



> In the 1970s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project planned to build fortifications at two strategic locations, which would keep massive storms on the Gulf of Mexico from causing Lake Pontchartrain to flood the city. An article in the May 28, 2005, New Orleans _Times-Picayune _stated, Under the original plan, floodgate-type structures would have been built at the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passesto block storm surges from moving from the Gulf into Lake Pontchartrain.
> 
> 
> 
> The floodgates would have blocked the flow of water from the Gulf of Mexico, through Lake Borgne, through the Rigolets [and Chef Mentuer] into Lake Pontchartrain, declared Professor Gregory Stone, the James P. Morgan Distinguished Professor and Director of the Coastal Studies Institute of Louisiana State University. This would likely have reduced storm surge coming from the Gulf and into the Lake Pontchartrain, Professor Stone told Michael P. Tremoglie during an interview on September 6. The professor concluded, [T]hese floodgates would have alleviated the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina.







> Why was this project aborted? As the _Times-Picayune_ wrote, *Those plans were abandoned after environmental advocates successfully sued to stop the projects* *as too damaging to the wetlands and the lake's eco-system*. (Emphasis added.) Specifically, in 1977, a state environmentalist group known as Save Our Wetlands (SOWL) sued to have it stopped. SOWL stated the proposed Rigolets and Chef Menteur floodgates of the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Prevention Project would have a negative effect on the area surrounding Lake Pontchartrain.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK ... play it this way ... Let's say a Canadian company in St. Catherine's has a major chemical disaster, threatening everything downwind of it.
> 
> How easy do you think it would be to *evacuate* Buffalo? Let's say the mayor says ... "OK, everybody to Erie. Now!"
> 
> ...


If the cloud took DAYS to get here and the city had pre-planned to use busses, trucks, etc....

Anyway. How would the feds fare any better in your little scenario? Its a cluster **** no matter how you slice it so you cant blame the local gvts. but the feds should be able to save the day? I dont get it.....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If the cloud took DAYS to get here and the city had pre-planned to use busses, trucks, etc....
> Anyway. How would the feds fare any better in your little scenario?


What precentage of your city, again, would voluntarily up and leave at the behest of the mayor?

The feds would not fare any better ... because the people running the appropriate departments are the same incompetent boobs we are dealing with now. 


Brown ran the International Arabian Horse Association and was hired because he was *not* a horse person. 
Brown claims to have been a professor of some po-dunk midwest college, but actually was only a student there. 
Brown claims to be a lawyer, but did not attend a college recognized by the American Bar Association.
Brown claims to have experience running a city's emergency services, but was actually an intern for the mayor.
This is the government we voted for. And as I have said in the past, I am one of the lucky ones ... I can actually come out ahead with this administration in place - I don't need to worry about an Estate tax, but I live high enough up the economic scale so that $3.50 per gallon gas prices don't really bother me too much.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Again...under YOUR leadership. How would the federal gvt. be able to save me??? And Buffalo isnt sitting in a flood plain with pumps running 24/7 to keep it dry. Its not sitting under a huge cliff threatening to fall on it nor is it next to a volcano ready to pull a Mt. Vesuvius at any moment. Could New Orleans have said the same?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_370261.html


> Second, the people of New Orleans. If you build your city in the middle of a rifle range, you would expect to get shot. Build in the middle of a flood plain, and sooner or later disaster will occur.
> 
> Third, the people of New Orleans who didn't have their own survival plan and money set aside in case of disaster. To expect the government to be your savior could have you sitting in a football arena without food, water and a future.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/s_370261.html


Hey, why don't we just start blaming Thomas Jefferson .... I mean, if he didn't buy this stinkin land in the first place 

Or even better yet ... let's blame the French..... we bought it from them anyhow. They must have known, two hundred and two years ago, when the sold us the city, that it was a disaster waiting until the exact right time to embarass President Bush for his Hubristic Unilateral action in the Middle East.

What does Nostrodamis say 'bout this anyhow. 

Do you always blame the victim? Nice !


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Your the one who started this game...theres enough BLAME to go around.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Why hadnt New Orleans Pre-planned this event or pre-staged supplies? Why didnt the state gvt. have this planned out way in advance? Why wasnt the fed. government prodding the state and the city to get on the ball?


"Cut taxes at all costs.  Drown the baby in the bathwater small government.  Every man for themselves."

That is the real culprit here.  Conservative governments can't govern effectively in emergencies.  Helping people is not their focus...unless you're a billionaire.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Name any First world government who could evacuate a major city.Think Paris would be emptied in 3 days? London? Miami?

 In Cuba, Castro says LEAVE and everybody leaves. By car, foot, donkey, bus etc. and they head for high ground. They dont sit around waiting for the gvt.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hurricane Katrina once again showed the world that government, be it state or federal, is fallible and indeed can be overwhelmed..


The government was overwhelmed because of direct neglect by the Bush Administration.  It didn't have to be this bad.  We could have been much better prepared...but that costs money and requires sacrifice.  This administration cut taxes on the rich and the poor drowned in response.  



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Depend on yourself. Get educated. Get smart. Get personal resources. Get off of "public dependence". That is the lesson of Katrina.


You have it so easy.  You have no idea how hard it is to this when you grow up in poverty.  The amount of priviledge the average middle class person in this country has when compared to the people who are dying is staggering.  This little rant is nothing more then a "let them eat cake..."

And then there is the problem of the old and the sick...are they going to follow your advice?  Sorry.  This philosophy just doesn't work.  People are not born with the same advantages and life changes (like age, sickness, and poverty) can cut any avenues of escape.  

All I can say is that with a philosophy like this, you better hope that everything goes well in your life, because if it doesn't, you might be the one who gets to drown.

Good Luck.

:soapbox:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

As for blaming the administration for the suffering of the "poor", well you can just as easily blame forty plus years of incompetent, and corrupt local government in New Orleans for the presence of so many poor people. And no plan to get them out of a flood basin that people have been predicting would flood for years.

I also find the sentiment amusing on a martial arts board where you hear the "you cant depend on the police to protect you..you are primarily responsible for your own safety..yadda yadda" mantra over and over again. May not apply, but amusing nonetheless.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

The bottom line on this disaster is the STATE OF LOUISIANA dropped the ball. There are over 500 buses in New Orleans that are under water that could have been used to evacuate the people who did not have transportation out of town . Instead that opted for the cheap route and rolled the dice that the levee would not break. They lost . But the people they herded in to the two buildings that did not have food, water, proper security etc paid the price. And I still havent heard exactly what the federal government was supposed to have done or supplied to have made the difference. Cant send military until the governor calls for it. Were the feds supposed to have had 10,000 busses fueled up and ready to pick everybody up? Was FEMA supposed to swoop down in their fleet of black helicopters? What? These things start with a good plan from the City. The state sends in the national guard and the feds co-ordinate and send in the military if needs be. Theres news that the mayor turned away red-cross trucks before the storm for crissakes! Theres blame to go ALL around. To lay it on Bush personally is silly.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Blame spreads thinly in this case.  President Bush, surely doesn't deserve all of it.  However, as I've said before, the mindset is the problem.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

As to my "privilege". I went to public school. Went through college on loans with no monetary support from my parents beyond using their washing machine and living with them on breaks. Worked, worked, worked and worked. Joined the military to get some money+benefits and gradually managed to work my way into my current job. What did I do that anybody else couldnt have accomplished? I had no scholarships, no programs (besides free lunch at school), technically lived in "poverty" for a number of years. Had to resort to medicade and food assistance when my firstborn arrived. There is no fate except that which we make for ourselves.

And you make a lot of ***umptions.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> As to my "privilege". I went to public school. Went through college on loans with no monetary support from my parents beyond using their washing machine and living with them on breaks. Worked, worked, worked and worked. Joined the military to get some money, benefits and gradually managed to work my way into my current job. What did I do that anybody else couldnt have accomplished? I had no scholarships, no programs, technically lived in "poverty" for a number of years. Had to resort to medicade and food assistance when my firstborn arrived. There is no fate except that which we make for ourselves.
> 
> And you make a lot of ***umptions.


Tom, a toast to you. I have to give you credit for standing behind the courage of your convictions.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Tom, a toast to you. I have to give you credit for standing behind the courage of your convictions.


 
:asian: 


:cheers:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The government was overwhelmed because of direct neglect by the Bush Administration. It didn't have to be this bad. We could have been much better prepared...but that costs money and requires sacrifice. This administration cut taxes on the rich and the poor drowned in response.


If this would have happened under Clintons watch things would have been different? Regans? Carters? New Orleans was under a threat only for the last 2 terms?

And the up here, the odds are Ill freeze before Ill drown.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If this would have happened under Clintons watch things would have been different? Regans? Carters? New Orleans was under a threat only for the last 2 terms?
> 
> And the up here, the odds are Ill freeze before Ill drown.


Oddly, James Lee Witt actually had some experience in emergency management.

FEMA has become a posting for political operatives in the Bush campaigns.

Look at the leadership of this organization since 2001.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> As to my "privilege". I went to public school. Went through college on loans with no monetary support from my parents beyond using their washing machine and living with them on breaks. Worked, worked, worked and worked. Joined the military to get some money+benefits and gradually managed to work my way into my current job. What did I do that anybody else couldnt have accomplished? I had no scholarships, no programs (besides free lunch at school), technically lived in "poverty" for a number of years. Had to resort to medicade and food assistance when my firstborn arrived. There is no fate except that which we make for ourselves.
> 
> And you make a lot of ***umptions.


I should compare notes with you.  I think you would be surprised.

In the richest country in the world, I've seen people freeze to death.  I've seen kids living in card board boxes.  I've watched people starve and I've gone hungry myself.  Some people really have no idea how bad it is for a great many people.

The very fact that you are able to do the above is a testament to the stability in your life.  For others, I know for a fact that it is not possible to do what you did without a lot of help.  And that is no assumption.

I work with the urban poor.  I know what their lives are like.  I know what their families are like and I am keenly aware of the resources they have.  For the poor of New Orleans, the support, the family, and the resources to leave were not present.

We can exert a certain amount of control over our lives, but there is always an environmental component.  And no matter how hard this administration tries, this rediculous "opportunity society" will never erase that.  The events of New Orleans and future events like it will continually thrust back into Americas face...


----------



## ginshun (Sep 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Blame spreads thinly in this case. President Bush, surely doesn't deserve all of it. However, as I've said before, the mindset is the problem.


 Ya, the mindset of "We don't have to help ourselves, because the federal government should take care of us" that is perpetuated by people who would rather us have a socialist/communist government.

 And saying that the National Guard and FEMA should have been in place in New Orleans BEFORE the storm hit is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If they had been there they would be victims along with everyone else. You can't put rescure crews in the middle of the storm and then expect them to immediately spring into action as soon as the rain stops.

 And what happens if the storm hadn't been as bad as it was? How much time and money would have been wasted then. Are you people really claiming that National Guard and FEMA should be dispatched to all costal cities every time a hurricane is predicited to hit? You've got to be kidding me.

 Some of you seem to think that the federal govnt should have been in NO before the storm enforcing a manditory evacuation, even though they were not asked to by the state or local governments. Who was supposed to make that descision? Bush? Is that really the kind of president and the federal govnt to have? Ones that deside for itself when to declare a police state, move into a city and forcibly remove people from their homes? Whithout any say from the local govnts?

 There is plenty of blame to go around, but IMO the bulk of it belongs with the state and local govn't of LA and NO. They have known for years that there levee system would not hold up to a storm of his magnitude, and did nothing to fix it. It was only a matter of time.




> I should compare notes with you.  I think you would be surprised.
> 
> In the richest country in the world, I've seen people freeze to death. I've seen kids living in card board boxes. I've watched people starve and I've gone hungry myself. Some people really have no idea how bad it is for a great many people.
> 
> ...


 So what exactly is your solution to this? That the federal government should step in and just give money to the people need it or claim to need it? Until all people are up to a certain level? Where should the money come from? From me? I am sure that I am much better off than many, and I am thankful for that, but does that mean that a poertion of my income should be taken away and given to somebody else? That seems to be what you are getting at.

    "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

   Is that what you are getting at?

   No thanks.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> And saying that the National Guard and FEMA should have been in place in New Orleans BEFORE the storm hit is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If they had been there they would be victims along with everyone else. You can't put rescure crews in the middle of the storm and then expect them to immediately spring into action as soon as the rain stops.


Gee, that's almost like saying 'Pre-planning should have been done.'.

But, who exactly is saying that? I, certainly, am not. What I am saying, however, is that Tuesday morning, when everybody wakes up to four feet of water ... . the best thing for everyone to do, is get in plane and fly to California to compare Iraq to World War II. 

At that point, having the city underwater, why couldn't the mayor do more? Except that, perhaps, the city was underwater. 



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> Some of you seem to think that the federal govnt should have been in NO before the storm enforcing a manditory evacuation, even though they were not asked to by the state or local governments. Who was supposed to make that descision? Bush? Is that really the kind of president and the federal govnt to have? Ones that deside for itself when to declare a police state, move into a city and forcibly remove people from their homes? Whithout any say from the local govnts?


Well, I'm not saying that either ... what I am saying is that when the scope of the disaster becomes so big that the Major News Network Anchors are travelling from hotels in SUV's that require armed guards to threaten people trying to escape the floods, somebody should start moving something. Specifically FEMA should start moving more than 1,300 agents into place .. cuz that ain't enough. 

Check out Brian Williams this afternoon on Last Nights 'The Daily Show'.


----------



## ginshun (Sep 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Check out Brian Williams this afternoon on Last Nights 'The Daily Show'.


 Sorry, no cable.

 Even if I had it, I don't think that 'The Daily Show' (while quite hilarious) is what I would consider a real credible or unbiased news source.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 9, 2005)

The FEMA head is out of N.O., and VADM Allen is in:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/hurricanes_and_tropical_storms


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 9, 2005)

More evidence on the culpability of the Louisiana state government and the city of New Orleans.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200509\NAT20050907a.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462_pf.html

Both address the ridiculous claims about how the cuts in funding were the cause of the disaster.  Do yourselves a favor and read both of them.

No, I didn't provide helpful snippets.  Sometimes they are useful, but other times they reduce the debate to sound-byte quoting.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> More evidence on the culpability of the Louisiana state government and the city of New Orleans.
> 
> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200509\NAT20050907a.html
> 
> ...


The first link has been removed.
I have been aware of the information in the second link for some days .. .

Wait ... before you bring up the argument that Louisiana gets more money for the Army Corps of Engineers than even California .... let me answer that too ... 

That's because Louisiana is where the floods are going to be!




Look at the bright side ... the feds saved a hundred *million* dollars in cuts to requests from that communist Blanco.

Except now, it's going to cost all of us a hundred *billion* dollars to put the friggin place back together. 

With any chance on our side, the speculation about the number of deaths being way below the earlier guesses will turn out to have some accuracy.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Sorry, no cable.
> 
> Even if I had it, I don't think that 'The Daily Show' (while quite hilarious) is what I would consider a real credible or unbiased news source.


Yeah ... and it could be that the truth hurts. 

Brian Williams is an anchor at NBC ... ****ing liberal bastards they are ... 

He was *in the Superdome* when Katrina made landfall.
He was in a hotel in New Orleans on Tuesday morning when his car was "up to the windows" in water (you remember, that's the day the President flew to California). 

So, instead of listening to trained journalists tell us, first hand,  about what it was like in New Orleans when the Hurrican hit; when the city flooded ... you just go on listening to that Islamic Owned Newscorp radio station.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Poverty in the United States

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm


> For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1





> The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
> 
> But the living conditions of the average poor person should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even these households would be judged to have high living standards in comparison to most other people in the world.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The first link has been removed.
> I have been aware of the information in the second link for some days .. .


In that case, you should be well aware of how the culpability lies in the local government regarding the spending and funds for flood-related activities.

The first article was even stronger and more direct, but it has been scrubbed from google cache as well.  I will update once I find out if it was erroneous or some other reason (publishing, usually). 
But if you read closely the article that you "knew about" already, you would have found more information such as the fact that Bush spent more money on the  levee funding than did Clinton...I actually agree with Clinton here.  He cut 98 flood control relief programs ten years ago, saying that it should be a locally funded project rather than a national one.  



> "the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects."


You fail to see the point of the article.  It isn't that Louisiana receives more money for *flood* control, but for all civic-work projects than does California.  The problem is not a lack of money at all whatsoever.  They had plenty of money for funding:



> "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."


 
There wasn't local political will to achieve the funding (which as I noted was higher than Clinton's).



> We thought all the projects were important -- not just levees," Breaux said. "Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but navigation projects were critical to our economic survival."
> Overall, Army Corps funding has remained relatively constant for decades, despite the "Program Growth Initiative" launched by agency generals in 1999 without telling their civilian bosses in the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has proposed cuts in the Corps budget, and has tried to shift the agency's emphasis from new construction to overdue maintenance. But most of those proposals have died quietly on Capitol Hill, and the administration has not fought too hard to revive them.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 9, 2005)

Thanks for that dissertation on poverty in America, straight from The Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative think tank.  That article also says that a major reason people are poor is that "they don't work much."  Nice.  Maybe if they could get a decent paying job with some childcare, they'd work more.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> But if you read closely the article that you "knew about" already, you would have found more information such as the fact that Bush spent more money on the levee funding than did Clinton...I actually agree with Clinton here. He cut 98 flood control relief programs ten years ago, saying that it should be a locally funded project rather than a national one.


Hey, You're slowing down ... it has taken you 10 days to blame this disaster on Clinton.

By the way, it was not - Levee Funding ... 

And don't confuse money that *Congress* put into the budget with what Bush spent. In all of Bush's budgets ... The President had offered about 10% of what Louisiana requested for funds ... Congress then went ahead and provided Louisiana with about 25% of What Louisiana requested.

So, less than *half* of what was actually spent, can Bushco take credit for.

And who was it that opened up the coastal marshes for development?


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 9, 2005)

I didn't blame Clinton for it. I said I agreed with his emphasis on local funding of flood-control projects as that is a state rather than a federal responsibility. But thanks for trying to twist my words around, as usual. My point was that even if you blame Bush for the funding, his proposed funding (not Congress approved) was higher than that of Clinton's, so by extension you have to blame Clinton as well. But as I said, none of that matters whatsoever because any harm to levee spending is a direct result of a lack of political will on the local politicians, and it isn't the role of the federal government to provide that money.

The money was much less than they requested because Louisiana had a track-record of pork-barrel spending, mismanagement, and inefficiency in using funds from the federal government.
I'm still wondering even if you read that article.

"Strock has also said that the marsh-restoration project would not have done much to diminish Katrina's storm surge, which passed east of the coastal wetlands."


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Who's to blame? We all are. 


> *1.* The mayor of New Orleans. He knows the city. He knows the danger. He knows that during Hurricane Georges in 1998, the use of the Superdome was a disaster and fully two-thirds of the residents never got out of the city. Nothing was done. He declared a mandatory evacuation only 24 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit.
> 
> *2. *The Louisiana governor. It's her job to call up the National Guard and get it to where it has to go. Where the Guard was in the first few days is a mystery. Indeed, she issued an authorization for the National Guard to commandeer school buses to evacuate people on Wednesday afternoon - two days after the hurricane hit.
> 
> ...


Theres a good sharing of the "blame". Im not saying that the response was acceptable. However Im not too surprised that things turned out the way it did. Try working in the military, guard, EMS, LE professions for a while. Murphy reigns supreme. However Im not going to accept blatant lumping of "blame" to achieve political goals either. Save it for after the clean-up. This stuff helps nobody in the short run.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 9, 2005)

Yeah, I saw that article earlier.  It's pretty good.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Katrina Response Timeline 
Dont let the websites title scare you off. Read the timeline.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 9, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Sorry, no cable.
> 
> Even if I had it, I don't think that 'The Daily Show' (while quite hilarious) is what I would consider a real credible or unbiased news source.


www.thedailyshow.com has video clips of the commentaries and interviews available for download.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2005)

Found this from a blogger ... to truly appreciate it, you must visit Whitehouse.gov and watch some of Scott McClellan's press briefings from the past two weeks.


"Mark, what's this about you being on academic probation?"

"Listen, mom, there will be a time and a place to discuss what went wrong, and what went right. Right now all our attention and resources need to be on the hard work at hand."

"Have you been going to class?" (more)

"You know, Mom, there are some, you and dad, that want to engage in a blame game. What's important is that there is an ongoing effort to finish the semester, and we need to focus on that, and that's exactly what we're going to do."

"Is your job taking up too much of your time? Are you getting enough sleep that you can concentrate on your schoolwork?"

"Mom I've made it clear that school and work are both priorities, the people of Dick's Sporting Goods that need tennis racquets, they're going to get them. And there are tests and reading to do. And I've made it clear this is important. And its hard work. But we're going to satisfy both priorities."

"Can we be confident that you are not goofing off drinking instead of attending to your studies?"

"I am not going to dignify a personal attack like this with a response. We are focused on getting the important work done right now. This is exactly the kind of thing that distracts us from what needs to be done."

"Well since you dodged my question, I have a follow-up. Are you going to pass?"

"I've already answered that question. There's no time for finger-pointing and playing a blame game."

"I am not playing a blame game. You didn't answer the question, Mark, I asked you a direct question. Yes or no are you going to pass?"

"Im not going to engage you in a blame game." 
​


----------



## ginshun (Sep 12, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Thanks for that dissertation on poverty in America, straight from The Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative think tank. That article also says that a major reason people are poor is that "they don't work much." Nice. Maybe if they could get a decent paying job with some childcare, they'd work more.


  What *is* the major reason people are poor?

 Maybe they should worry about getting a decent job before having a bunch of kids.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 12, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> What *is* the major reason people are poor?
> 
> Maybe they should worry about getting a decent job before having a bunch of kids.



Yawn.

The fundamental duality between Conservatism and Liberalism highlighted yet again. Lefties blame society and external circumstances, whereas Righties blame the individual and internal dispositional traits.

Neither side, of course, being able to champion a collective IQ high enough to realize the answer is "both/and", not "either/or".

Yawn.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2005)

Mod Note:

 Anonymous reputation discussion split to here.  Please carry on there.  Thank you.

 -Dan Bowman-
 -MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2005)

Another excellent article that shares the blame in fair ammounts...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/12612851.htm



> The Federal Emergency Management Agency, its top ranks filled by political appointees and its budget hit by deep cuts, seemed unable to grasp the magnitude of the disaster. On the day after the storm, FEMA director Michael Brown met in Biloxi, Miss., with Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, and told him not to worry, because FEMA had had lots of hurricane practice in Florida. "I don't think you've seen anything like this," Barbour responded. "We're talking nuclear devastation."
> 
> Brown was removed Friday from overseeing disaster response and replaced with a Coast Guard admiral.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

Riddle me this: 


According the Editor and Publisher, the President "*could not identify any specific shortcomings*" in the relief efforts related to Hurricane Katrina. - http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001096870

The President said today, "To the extent the federal government didn't do its job right, *I take responsibility*." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9324891/​ 
Anybody see a problem with these two premises? 

What exactly is the President taking responsibility for? 

It seems the President is doing an end run around that last question. Someone needs to fall on their sword for this disaster, but they have to acknowledge what, exactly, the disaster is first, I think. 

Denying any knowledge of the FEMA Chiefs resignation, as President Bush did Monday, does not exactly instill the confidence that he understands what is going on in his Administration, much less the relief effort.


----------



## modarnis (Sep 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Riddle me this:
> 
> 
> According the Editor and Publisher, the President "*could not identify any specific shortcomings*" in the relief efforts related to Hurricane Katrina. - http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001096870
> ...




I suppose it would be necessary to know what question may have been posed to trigger each response, prior to deciding whether or not the premises are inconsistent


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Sep 13, 2005)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
--Abraham Lincoln ​Nice quote.​​How about we blame nature and the lack of organization. Factor in human nature and we are all doomed...lol​


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2005)

This is an interesting photo ....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hey, You're slowing down ... it has taken you 10 days to blame this disaster on Clinton.
> 
> By the way, it was not - Levee Funding ...
> 
> ...


 Could be the fact that congress funds projects. Lets all try to read our Constitution before talking about what "Bushco" didn't pay for.

As for the previous still photo, other than appease your own base sense of humor, what exactly is a still photo of the president supposed to add to the dialogue. 

This is part of the problem. What kind of dialogue can even be had on any topic when one party of the conversation finds still photos of people they hate amusing and the height of argument.

As for the still photo, what exactly is that supposed to add to the dialogue.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 20, 2005)

This just in ... 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2005/09/20/some_truckers_frosted_by_shipments_of_ice_to_northeast/


> *Some truckers frosted by shipments of ice to Northeast*
> 
> By Clarke Canfield, Associated Press Writer  |  September 20, 2005
> 
> ...


I guess staging this Ice in Portland Maine will provide just in time delivery for Hurricane Rita, when it hits Texas, eh?


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 20, 2005)

perhaps they have enough ice already.  or perhaps you are looking for any possible reason to blame someone.  of course, that is the topic of thread so have at it...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 20, 2005)

Sapper6 ...
Try this, OK ... 
Get a MAP ... 

Look for Texas ... and Look for Maine.


> The drivers get paid *$2.50 a mile* while driving, and $*800 to $1,000 a day while waiting* at a location, said Gosnell. He questioned whether FEMA could've found a location closer to Alabama.
> "I'm sure they could've found some place to store it down there," he said.
> 
> Jeff Campbell, a truck driver from Rockingham, N.C., said he figured it is costing more than $5,000 per truck -- or *more than $1 million overall *-- to send the ice-loaded trucks to Maine.


That's a pretty ****ing expensive Ice cube. 

It's time like these that make me glad the Democratic Party has absolutely no power in Washington D.C. 

But, boy, do I wish some of those Republicans running the country could remember anything about fiscal conservatism.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I guess staging this Ice in Portland Maine


 Next month: Coals to Newcastle.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sapper6 ...
> Try this, OK ...
> Get a MAP ...
> 
> ...


 Or try this...get a map of the total refrigeration facilities available to store all of that ice. Look up the term "logistics" while you're at it. It's more complicated than openning up your road atlas. 

I'd say what happened is that someone ordered more ice than necessary, just in case. Now they have to find a place to store. Refrigeration space usually isn't just lying around, as refrigeration is expensive (usually, when a freezer is turned on, it's because someone is already storing things in it) so they made the decision to keep this ice....on ice, at the nearest available freezer storage locations, which in this case, happens to be where they likely put it.

Of course to the overly simplistic, it's a simple matter of looking at a map and saying "hey, Maine sure is far from Texas, ahuh, ahuh". That's why they call it "myopic".

Questioning whether they could find a closer place, isn't the same as saying a closer place was available.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 21, 2005)

There's always waste in cases like this, yeah. But, this one does seem especially silly.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sapper6 ...
> Try this, OK ...
> Get a MAP ...
> 
> ...



pretty condescending and mature of you there mikey.  thanks for the geography lesson.  blame away...


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 21, 2005)

OK - here's my post on the Blame Game.


I have two very good friends.
One sent me this (IMHO) brilliant note about the Blame Game:
 


> Come on. You can't blame Bush. He wasn't even there. How could he have stopped the levees from breaking? He did exactly what he has done in every situation since he has been president. He put his people on it and went out on a publicity tour to make money and sell is crappy ideas. Is it his fault the people he put on it are either incompetent or on vacation? No, it is not. Obviously your views of how the white house should be run are skewed by your viewing of west wing. Come on now, in the real world if you are on vacation, you are on vacation and no one calls you back just because there is an "emergency" and a city is supposed to be "evacuated". That stuff only happens on t.v. and in the movies. And as anyone can see, the state of Louisiana is completely unable to file the proper paperwork with the proper agencies and therefore didn't deserve federal aid. I mean, if you don't file each of these forms in triplicate how do expect to get anything? Haven't you ever gone to a hospital emergency room and filled out all of their forms? Imagine what you are supposed to do for a Federal Emergency Room!
> 
> I think I will play the blame game. New Orleans and Louisiana should have fixed those levees 25 years ago. The city should have used there own buses to evacuate people. FEMA should have had an army down there to help out. The national guard shouldn't be in Iraq. The superdome should have had a better roof. Bush's people should pay attention to this country a little more. Bush should never have appointed the president of the Arabian horse club as the director of a federal disaster agency. For that matter, Bush should never have been elected president. The American people are to blame for this tragedy. And you know what, lets blame Cuba too. I mean, if Cuba had a larger land mass, then it could have sucked up some of the hurricane's strength and maybe it would have only been a Cat 3. Heck, for that matter lets blame Thomas Jefferson for the Louisiana purchase. What was he thinking? Didn't he know this city was below sea level? It is a history of bad decisions all the way back to the founding fathers.
> 
> ...


 
My other friend took in a family of four, helped the husband get a job, got the wife into night classes and facilitated their two little girls enrollment in school.  

Who has done more?

What does the Blame Game accomplish?

The rest of us in this little group of friends raised over 1600 dollars to help.  At work, we're putting together school supplies for the displaced children and sending them to the shelters. 

So the Government isn't doing anything - are you?  
"BY the people, OF the people, for the people."  We ARE the government.

OK, I'm off my silly little soap box now..:whip:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

That's because the "Blame Game" absolves the "blamer" of any responsibilities.  The rationale goes, if I can blame someone else, then I don't have any obligation or responsibility to do anything myself.  It's their fault, they should fix it.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 21, 2005)

Except whoever gets blamed, we'll all be paying the price--it's coming out of all our taxes.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's because the "Blame Game" absolves the "blamer" of any responsibilities.  The rationale goes, if I can blame someone else, then I don't have any obligation or responsibility to do anything myself.  It's their fault, they should fix it.



nice point, i must agree


----------



## arnisador (Sep 22, 2005)

Dudes, let's focus on the good news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050921/en_nm/katrina_strippers_dc



> In a sign that things may be returning to normal in New Orleans, strip shows are back in the city's famous French Quarter.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 25, 2005)

Several reports today tell us the Military is requesting a 'National Plan' for disaster relief efforts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/25/national/main883220.shtml



> Military officials told President Bush on Sunday that the U.S. needs a national plan to coordinate search and rescue efforts following natural disasters or terrorist attacks.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9477781/



> Bush heard military leaders plead for a national plan to coordinate search-and-rescue efforts.


This begs the question ... *what the hell has the Department of Homeland Security been doing since its inception?*

Donald H. Rumsfeld *is* a signatory to the *National Response Plan*. Where does this plan lack the clarity needed to properly respond to a National Emergency. If it was unclear, why did he sign on the dotted line? Why did any other government officials sign on the dotted line? 

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=14&content=4264

How incompetent do we allow these government officials to be? This

Signators to the National Response Plan:


Ann M. Veneman - Secretary Department of Agriculture
Donald L. Evans - Secretary Department of Commerce
Donald H. Rumsfeld - Secretary Department of Defense
Rod Paige - Secretary Department of Education
Spencer Abraham - Secretary Department of Energy
Thommy G Thompson - Secretary Department of Health and Human Services
Tom Ridge - Secretary Department of Homeland Security
Alphonso Jackson - Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development
Gale A. Norton - Secretary Department of the Interior
John Ashcroft - Attorney General Department of Justice
Elaine I. Chao - Secretary Department of Labor
Colin L. Powell - Secretary Department of State
Norman Y. Mineta - Secretary Department of Transportation
John W. Snow - Secretary Department of the Treasury
Anthony J. Principi - Secretary Department of Veterans Affairs
Porter J. Goss - Director Central Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency
Michael O. Leavitt - Administrator Environmental Protection Agency
Robert S. Mueller III - Director Federal Bureau of Investigation
Michael Powell - Chairman Federal Communications Commission
Stephen A. Perry - AdministratorGeneral Services Administration
Sean O'Keefe - Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration
Ellen Engleman Conners - Chairman National Transportation Safety Board
Nils J. Diaz - Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Kay Coles James - Director Office of Personnel Management
Hector V. Barreto - Administrator Small Business Administration
JoAnne B. Barnhart - Commissioner Social Security Administration
Glenn L. McCullough Jr. - Chairman Tennessee Valley Authority
Andrew S. Natsios - Administrator U.S. Agency for International Development
John E. Potter - Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer U.S. Postal Service
Marsha J. Evans - President and Chief Executive Officer American Red Cross
David Eisner - Chief Executive Officer Corporation for National and Community Service
S. Jane Morgan - President National Vluntary Organizations Active in Disaster.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 26, 2005)

Okay...I can't help it.

*THE REAL REASON HELP NEVER ARRIVED.*


See below.


Regards, 


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 26, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Okay...I can't help it.
> 
> *THE REAL REASON HELP NEVER ARRIVED.*
> 
> See below.


 _*PRICELESS!! I LOVE IT!!*_


----------



## arnisador (Sep 26, 2005)

Is it a real photo, or an editing trick?


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is it a real photo, or an editing trick?


 :shrug: You had to go and ruin my fun, didn't you? :uhohh:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Sep 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is it a real photo, or an editing trick?


Probably real... what are you trying to do?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is it a real photo, or an editing trick?




Oh, I suspect it could be either.  

That's what makes it so funny.  Its almost a...metaphor.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 26, 2005)

Now, we should all be ashamed of ourselves because it very well is likely that this is something a dyslexic individual might do.

 Does that make anybody else nervous?  That he might press the little red button on the left instead of the little blue one on the right?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 26, 2005)

Thanks Heavens he didn't really fly those planes in the National Guard, then.

I like the metaphor idea!


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2005)

This, apparently, is not an editing trick.


FEMA has re-hired Michael Brown as a consultant to review the response to Hurricane Katrina.



> *9:05 p.m.*
> (CBS)  Later this evening, *CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger* spoke with a spokesman for FEMA, Russ Knocke, who confirmed that Brown remains on the FEMA payroll. He also said that technically Brown remains at FEMA as a "contractor" and he is "transitioning out of his job." The reason he will remain at FEMA about a month after his resignation, said the spokesman, is that the agency wants to get the "proper download of his experience."
> 
> *6:44 p.m.*
> (CBS)  *CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger* reports that Michael Brown, who recently resigned as the head of the FEMA, has been rehired by the agency as a consultant to evaluate it's response following Hurricane Katrina


I need a friggin' aspirin.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 26, 2005)




----------



## arnisador (Sep 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> FEMA has re-hired Michael Brown as a consultant to review the response to Hurricane Katrina.


 Sigh...I guess I shoulda expected this.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 27, 2005)

I





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> FEMA has re-hired Michael Brown as a consultant to review the response to Hurricane Katrina.


 I'm ... speechless.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 27, 2005)

Good news: Consultant Michael Brown has already completed his analysis:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Hurricane_Katrina/



> *Brown Blames 'Dysfunctional' Louisiana*
> 
> WASHINGTON - Former FEMA director Michael Brown aggressively defended his role in responding to Hurricane Katrina on Tuesday and blamed most coordination failures on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.



Well, now we know.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 27, 2005)

Looks like he at least responded to THIS disaster quickly ... :shrug:


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 3, 2005)

This in from Knight Ridder today.

*No evidence backs up reports of rescue helicopters being fired upon*


> NEW ORLEANS - Among the rumors that spread as quickly as floodwaters after Hurricane Katrina, reports that gunmen were taking potshots at rescue helicopters stood out for their senselessness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More here:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12801034.htm


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2005)

> But so many rumors were swirling that the facts still haven't been sorted out. A picture is emerging of heroic but harried rescue workers from dozens of organizations forced to make snap decisions with only slender threads of information and no reliable communications.
> 
> 
> The storm created so much confusion that government officials cannot even agree on whether they ever issued an order to halt flights or other rescue efforts.
> ...



Exact same phenomena known as "the fog of war".......


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Exact same phenomena known as "the fog of war".......


So true. Anyone who's ever been involved in a SAR (Search and Rescue) case KNOWS that initial reports are often EXTREMELY inaccurate. Were gunshots from individuals SIGNALLING SRU's (Search and Rescue Units), or individuals firing upon them? Pretty darn hard to tell from the sky.

Still, the media really hyped this "New Orlean is out of control" issue. I bet that for every troublemaker, there were a dozen or more orderly and law-abiding citizens queing up responsibly for assistance.

Unfortunately, citizens lining up peacefully for aid isn't sensational enough to make headlines.

Also, the rescuers are heros, in my book. It's hard to see that many of them would have been deterred (unless ordered) by a few gunshots.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I bet that for every troublemaker, there were a dozen or more orderly and law-abiding citizens queing up responsibly for assistance.


Oh. Do you really think 'a dozen or more' were orderly for every troublemaker. 

I'm not sure that sentence can convey enough sarcasm. I'm not sure if that statement is intented to be bigotted or arrogant or rasict or none of these. But, it certainly doesn't seem very thought out. 

With an anticipated 20% of the population of New Orleans unable to evacuate, as many as 100,000 people may have been in the city during and after the hurricane. By your math, that would mean approaching 7,690 "troublemakers".

Assuming you are looking at people causing actual trouble, and not just people trying to survive when their government has completely shut down, I think it is hard to justify that number without many more violent incidents than have been verified. Especially when you consider how many of those initial reports are now being shown to be rumor and speculation.

'a dozen or more'. 

Please


----------



## Sapper6 (Oct 4, 2005)

it was a figure of speech michael.  stop blowing what he said out of proportion.  i think what jonathan was trying to say is that the media just didn't give enough attention to the GOOD that was going on down there, performed by citizens and rescuers, and for every "troublemaker" there were even more "good-dooers".


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> it was a figure of speech michael. stop blowing what he said out of proportion. i think what jonathan was trying to say is that the media just didn't give enough attention to the GOOD that was going on down there, performed by citizens and rescuers, and for every "troublemaker" there were even more "good-dooers".


Well, it is no figure of speech that I have heard before. 

And I am not going to project what I "think he was trying to say" over what he actually said. Somewhere, someone once said "words mean things".

So, you are going to 'Blame the Media' for what went wrong after Hurricane Katrina because they "didn't bring enough attention to the GOOD". You know, it is not news if a dog bites a man .... but it is news if a man bites a dog. The job of 'the media' is to report the news.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

The search for bodies has ended in N.O.; the official toll stands at 972:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051004/ap_on_re_us/new_orleans


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2005)

Didnt know that computers and large screen televisions were necessary items needed to "survive when the government shut down".....


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

i just love it dude..
looks like all politicians (or at least those under attack) gather and find one answer or one sentence that contains a couple of keywords to say
it amazed me that they all said the phrase "we're not playing the blame game" so many times in one day...
ridiculous
i coulda sworn there's someone who gives them a couple of key words and say "make sure you always say those" lol
like me going to a job interview!


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh. Do you really think 'a dozen or more' were orderly for every troublemaker.
> 
> With an anticipated 20% of the population of New Orleans unable to evacuate, as many as 100,000 people may have been in the city during and after the hurricane. By your math, that would mean approaching 7,690 "troublemakers".
> 
> ...


Ok, you got me. I should have said hundreds, or even thousands. My point remains the same, which I felt was clear - the reports of widespread crime and anarchy were exagerated if not outright incorrect. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and consider that I may have inadvertently misspoke. Refer to my previous posts on the subject wherein I slammed the slow Federal (as well as local) response to Katrina.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that sentence can convey enough sarcasm. I'm not sure if that statement is intented to be bigotted or arrogant or rasict or none of these. But, it certainly doesn't seem very thought out.


Ok, not well thought out; I did not mean at that proportion - but you've read and responded to enough of my posts on MT to know that I am not racist and that I have great sympathy for the victims of Katrina and substantial outrage over the tremendously flawed response. Before jumping to conclusions regarding a person's possible bigotry, arrogance or racism, you need to consider that person's body of work (average posts) and consider first if such charges are consistent with their character and personality. If such charges are not evident in their writings, and in my case they are not, it is best to consider that the person may have spoken, or typed, in error and that said racism may simply be a miscommunication.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> And I am not going to project what I "think he was trying to say" over what he actually said. Somewhere, someone once said "words mean things".


This is where judgement comes in. CONTEXT. The sentence before I mistakenly said dozen (instead of hundreds or thousands) was this one:

"Still, the media really hyped this "New Orlean is out of control" issue."

Finally, according to Martial Talk I am now A SPLENDID ONE TO BEHOLD! A title which is incompatible with racism:
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27212

In the future, please bear in mind my new status as a SPLENDID ONE TO BEHOLD, before making accusations (Humour!).


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 5, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Finally, according to Martial Talk I am now A SPLENDID ONE TO BEHOLD! A title which is incompatible with racism:
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27212
> 
> In the future, please bear in mind my new status as a SPLENDID ONE TO BEHOLD, before making accusations (Humour!).


I like that. Props to you. 

Jonathan Randall, please don't take this the wrong way, but I can not compare the referenced posting to your body of posts here on martialtalk, because I do not recall reading other posts of yours. I am certain that I have. But, they did not make the impression on me that identified the thoughts with your signature. 

Now, there are some that I agree with greatly whom I do remember their body of work, concerning posts. And there are those with whom I disagree, and thus, remember their body of work, here on MartialTalk. But many, perhaps the majority, are indistiguishable to me based on their posts. 

I suppose that is a weakness, to which I should turn my attention. I will try to do better in this endeavor in the future.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2005)

Meanwhile, people are being encouraged to return to the affected areas:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/hurricane_katrina

I see the logic, and I know some businesses are having trouble finding workers. I know that there is real concern that many physicians and other health professionals will simply not return. Yet, I wonder if N.O., for example, is really ready to support a mass return of citizens, especially with all the mold-infected houses. Where will these people live?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 7, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, people are being encouraged to return to the affected areas:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/hurricane_katrina
> 
> I see the logic, and I know some businesses are having trouble finding workers. I know that there is real concern that many physicians and other health professionals will simply not return. Yet, I wonder if N.O., for example, is really ready to support a mass return of citizens, especially with all the mold-infected houses. Where will these people live?


Good question. Will the damaged infrastructure support large numbers of returning citizens? Will the levees be repaired enough and steps taken to help prevent a second flood - seeing as climatologists are saying that we are at the beginning of a thirty year cycle of more intense hurricanes?

My sympathy for those people only increases as the days go by. So many disposessed. On a happy note, two of my friends (a couple) just donated a small inheritance to New Orleans relief. Their funds filled a semi of relief supplies - including Pet Food!!! as well as clothes, shoes, and other essential items the relief workers had on their list.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2005)

President Bush is on what someone reported as his *8th* trip to the area affected by Hurricane Katrian and Hurricane Rita.

While I suppose this is a bit better than his 8th trip to Crawford in that time, and perhaps a bit better than camping out in Cheyanne Mountain (Northern Command), it does seem a bit ... photo-opy?

And, I don't even mind the 'photo-opy' nature of the visit (there is literally a photograph of the President rolling up his sleeves), but wouldn't it be nice to see the President actually meeting with some of the displaced citizens. To be sure, the 9th Ward did not, as a rule, vote for the guy ... but he's their President too.

And didn't the President say that 'Christ' was his favorite philosopher? What about, 'Whatsoever you do, to the least of my brothers' bit. Isn't *now* the time to do to the least? Or at a very minimum, to have a picture taken looking like you are doing to the least?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> President Bush is on what someone reported as his *8th* trip to the area affected by Hurricane Katrian and Hurricane Rita.
> 
> While I suppose this is a bit better than his 8th trip to Crawford in that time, and perhaps a bit better than camping out in Cheyanne Mountain (Northern Command), it does seem a bit ... photo-opy?
> 
> ...


Be honest...Is there anything short of suicide or resignation that the man could do that you wouldn't complain about or find fault with?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Be honest...Is there anything short of suicide or resignation that the man could do that you wouldn't complain about or find fault with?


Look for my post about the President's trip to Iraq; Thanksgiving two years ago.

Now it's your turn ... 

Are 8 trips to the stricken area, (how many visits to the Astrodome?) over-doing it a bit? 

Is there anything this President does that you can recognize as politically movtivated ... and not good for the country? 

How long did it take those eight heavy-lift helicopters to get to Pakistan?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Look for my post about the President's trip to Iraq; Thanksgiving two years ago.
> 
> Now it's your turn ...
> 
> ...


 Ok, he didn't visit enough or too much? Make up our minds.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 11, 2005)

Both!  :idunno:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Ok, he didn't visit enough or too much? Make up our minds.



I think Michael is trying to say, in essence, that:

"Too little, too late".

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 11, 2005)

Sure looks like he's trying to salvage his administration's reputation.  I wonder if FEMA is helping him do that?  Polls would indicate they are, given how low he's sunk.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I think Michael is trying to say, in essence, that:
> 
> "Too little, too late".
> 
> Laterz.


 I know what Michael's trying to say, but it's coming off sounding petty.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2005)

What I am trying to say is that it would be perfectly acceptable for the President to visit the affected areas *if* he was doing anything other than staging photo ops.

Actually, what I heard him say on today's morning interview was contrite, thoughtful and appropriate; finally. I think Laura must have coached him last night. Hell, he almost sounded genuine.

But, as one other person put it ... "can't we just say that President Bush has had his 'Bullhorn Moment' for Katrina and move on." I mean, it would be nice if *one, just one* of his photo-ops was not so contrived and controlled. Maybe meet with someone who's home now consists of a foundation ... I mean, other than Trent Lott.

As far as I am concerned ... he could visit the affected Gulf Coast one hundred times .... if each of those visits consisted of meeting with Governors, Soldiers and Firefighters ... the visit is *worthless.*

I'm would like to see the report on who from Habitat for Humanity was actually at this mornings build site. I'm betting on bussed in National Guard soldiers.

Can't he just drum up another imminent terrorist threat to boost his dumper polls? 

Tritefully yours,

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What I am trying to say is that it would be perfectly acceptable for the President to visit the affected areas *if* he was doing anything other than staging photo ops.
> 
> Actually, what I heard him say on today's morning interview was contrite, thoughtful and appropriate; finally. I think Laura must have coached him last night. Hell, he almost sounded genuine.
> 
> ...


See, if we're pointing fingers at Bush for contrived photo-ops, that's a little trite. He's a politician, and as contrived photo-ops go he's certainly not anywhere near the worst or most shameless. Pointing out that they purposely put themselves in front of a running camera gets the "Duh" award of the year. They're politicians, it's what they do.  Bush would have to get up pretty early in the morning to match the ham-handed theatrics of a Ted Kennedy or a Hillary Clinton.  How many times did I hear "Reporting for Duty" and "Hope is on the way" before the election?  It's all shameless pandering, every bit of it.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2005)

Eight trips is just showing off, in my opinion.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> How many times did I hear "Reporting for Duty" and "Hope is on the way" before the election? It's all shameless pandering, every bit of it.


I'll see you're "Reporting for Duty" and "Hope is on the way", and raise you to "Credible Threat of Terrorist Attack" and "We've Killed Al Qaeda's Number 2".


And some politicians actually work on making peoples lives better. If you can't see that in the work of Kennedy and Clinton, then perhaps you can see it in John McCain. In a stunning act of Political Numbskullery, President Bush has threatened to *veto* a bill that would codify as United States Law, the current rules of the United States Military concerning treatment of prisoners.

Think about it ... the Commander-in-Chief is going to veto a law *that is current military policy*. And it has been the Military's policy for decades. Huh?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'll see you're "Reporting for Duty" and "Hope is on the way", and raise you to "Credible Threat of Terrorist Attack" and "We've Killed Al Qaeda's Number 2".
> 
> 
> And some politicians actually work on making peoples lives better. If you can't see that in the work of Kennedy and Clinton, then perhaps you can see it in John McCain. In a stunning act of Political Numbskullery, President Bush has threatened to *veto* a bill that would codify as United States Law, the current rules of the United States Military concerning treatment of prisoners.
> ...


 Of course if it's already US Military policy, (See also: Punishable by the Uniform Code of Military Justice) why does it need to be US civilian law?  Exactly what purpose is that supposed to serve.

Seems redundant.  Perhaps Bush see's it as nothing more than a veiled attempt to take legal jurisdiction from Military courts, and place it in civilian courts.  I'll defer to the UCMJ when dealing with US military personnell.  

Again, your argument is based on "gut reaction" emotional argument, devoid of any rationale as to WHY Bush should sign this bill?  To make you feel better?  If that's the only reason, that's not quite enough to pass a law.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course if it's already US Military policy, (See also: Punishable by the Uniform Code of Military Justice) why does it need to be US civilian law? Exactly what purpose is that supposed to serve.
> 
> Seems redundant. Perhaps Bush see's it as nothing more than a veiled attempt to take legal jurisdiction from Military courts, and place it in civilian courts. I'll defer to the UCMJ when dealing with US military personnell.
> 
> Again, your argument is based on "gut reaction" emotional argument, devoid of any rationale as to WHY Bush should sign this bill? To make you feel better? If that's the only reason, that's not quite enough to pass a law.


Okay, then. How about the President Supporting the will of the American People through the voice of their elected leaders. 

90 Senators ---- that's 90 Percent of the Senators ---- support this bill. 

The language in the bill is from that liberal nutcase - John McCain - you know, the one member of senate who spent five years as a prisoner of war, actually being tortured. I guess my *gut reaction* is to trust this guy on this issue, because he knows something about it. 

Look, if you want to pretend the President and his adminstration have not sactioned and authorized torture, you go right ahead. But don't try and dissuade those of us who live in reality that it ain't so.

President Bush can't even field questions from soldiers fairly. Did you hear the audio feed from yesterday's Q&A from Iraq. For a half-hour before the interviews (in which the President was supposed to want to hear directly from soldiers), an internal Department of Defense person *scripted, and rehearsed the script* what the President was going to say, and which soldier was going to answer the question, and how the question was going to be answered. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051013/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq

My position has been consistent. President Bush needs to be impeached, found guilty of giving false statements to the Senate and House (not to mention the American People) and removed from office. I have to imagine supporting him so blindly is getting lonely. What are you, down' to 36% now?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 19, 2005)

Meanwhile, Hurricane Wilma is now Category 4 and predicted to affect Florida, at least:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051019/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/hurricane_wilma


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 1, 2006)

Today we learn that the President was told before Hurricane Katrina made landfall that there was a danger of the levee's breaking in New Orleans. 

For those of you who missed it, several days after the defication hit the rotary oscillator, President Bush told the nation that "No one could have predicted the levee's would fail.".

But he didn't want to play the Blame Game .... probably cuz he knew who was to blame.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Mar 2, 2006)

For those of you that missed it....Michaeledward doesn't like the president, and will go to great lengths to blame him for everything from the Gulf War, to the break up of David Lee Roth and Van Halen.

I don't support the President on a number of issues. However, these people go to great lengths to create conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. To use the Huffington Post and Michael Moore as talking points, is about the same as me using Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock to argue science.

Look...you want to change things? Come up with an agenda, show the American people a BETTER way of doing things, and then run on that platform during the next election. But the hatred, bashing, etc just makes the party look even more rediculous.

It's time for you guys to realize that impeachment is simply something that is not going to happen. You don't have the votes. So why not turn all of that anger into a platform that will get you elected?


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 2, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> But the hatred, bashing, etc just makes the party look even more rediculous.


 
Ummm..... which political party are we talking about here??

Laterz.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Mar 2, 2006)

The Toga Party.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 2, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> For those of you that missed it....Michaeledward doesn't like the president, and will go to great lengths to blame him for everything from the Gulf War, to the break up of David Lee Roth and Van Halen.
> 
> I don't support the President on a number of issues. However, these people go to great lengths to create conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. To use the Huffington Post and Michael Moore as talking points, is about the same as me using Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock to argue science.
> 
> ...


 
Jeff Boler, whether I like the President or not is irrelevant. 

Recently, the United States lost one of its most important and historic cities because the Army Corps of Engineers did not properly complete tasks assigned to them; the levees failed because they were poorly constructed; the soil upon which they were built was not adequate to the task. 

The President is on tape telling local and state government officials that the Federal Government was fully prepared. Apparently, he meant that the goverment was prepared for Senator McCain's birthday party. Because while New Orleans was drowning, the President was cutting birthday cake.

Today we get further information about how the President was given Intelligence information that contradicted his claims about Iraq before launching his personal vendetta war ... which he ignored.

http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/articles/0302nj1.htm



> The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.


 


> On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was *unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat* to the United States.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Mar 2, 2006)

> Jeff Boler, whether I like the President or not is irrelevant.


 
No, you're wrong.  Your dislike of the President is the very heart of the matter.  You are only upset because it is George Bush.  If it was anyone else, you wouldn't have a problem with it.  That's the problem.  You are making this out to be some noble campaign, but the fact of the matter is that your guy lost the last election, and your still pissed off about it.

That's the same problem the Democratic party is having right now.  They are attempting to act like all of the issues are some noble campaign to make things better, but in reality, all they are doing is whining and crying, and probably costing themselves the next election as well.


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 2, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> No, you're wrong. Your dislike of the President is the very heart of the matter. You are only upset because it is George Bush. If it was anyone else, you wouldn't have a problem with it. That's the problem. You are making this out to be some noble campaign, but the fact of the matter is that your guy lost the last election, and your still pissed off about it.


 
Speaking as a psychology major here....

I try to avoid psychoanalyzing people I've never met before. But, that's just me. 

Laterz.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 2, 2006)

If it walks, quacks and ***** like a duck, its probably a duck.


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 2, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> If it walks, quacks and ***** like a duck, its probably a duck.


 
Or perhaps it's just an illusory correlation.

The point is that unless you are a trained psychopathologist, you don't have the means for ascertaining with any acceptable degree of certainty. There certainly isn't enough information to go on from a few random posts on an internet message board, in any event.

Regardless, I don't think it's a valid concern and has no place in the discussion. Simply saying "well, you only think that because you hate so-and-so" is, essentially, attacking an individual's personality rather than an individual's argument. Its a type of ad hominem logical fallacy.

Laterz.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Mar 2, 2006)

Thanks for that reply there Dr. Phil.  Your opinion is noted.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 2, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> to the break up of David Lee Roth and Van Halen.


Diamond Dave's not with Van Halen?! Next you'll be telling us that Peter Criss and Ace Frehley are no longer in Kiss...


----------



## Mark L (Mar 2, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> ...go on from a few random posts on an internet message board ...


I offer no proof, but _my observation_ is that the posts are neither few nor random.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Mar 2, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Diamond Dave's not with Van Halen?! Next you'll be telling us that Peter Criss and Ace Frehley are no longer in Kiss...


 
Is Paul even in Kiss anymore?  I thought that was Cher.....


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 2, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> No, you're wrong. Your dislike of the President is the very heart of the matter. You are only upset because it is George Bush. If it was anyone else, you wouldn't have a problem with it. That's the problem. You are making this out to be some noble campaign, but the fact of the matter is that your guy lost the last election, and your still pissed off about it.
> 
> That's the same problem the Democratic party is having right now. They are attempting to act like all of the issues are some noble campaign to make things better, but in reality, all they are doing is whining and crying, and probably costing themselves the next election as well.


 
Jeff Boler, My guy was Dennis Kucinich. And Before that My guy was the nutcase with the corvair ... so please don't ascribe motives to me based on your ideological hatred of me.

My problem is that the President is pissing all over the American Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is gone. The Department of Homeland Security (a grotesque usurption of authority) and the White House did not even look to see if there were any ties between Dubai Ports World and al Qaeda prior to turning over terminal operations in the United States --- and there were connections between UAE and al Qaeda that we know of. The President fiddled while New Orleans was drowning. The President has initiated the largest transfer of wealth from the American Citizens to the richest .5% of the population unchecked. 

This administration is, and has been for more than five years, a complete Friggin' Disaster. 

Impeachment is too good for this son of a *****. 

And, in the next day or so, I will be updating the 1000 and Counting thread ... oops, it is a 2000 and counting thread ..... although we are about to hit 2300 and counting. And how many Weapons of Mass Destruction were found .... that is ZERO. 

I guess we can tell that Jeff Boler remains one of the 18% in the country that view Vice President Cheney favorably, and one of the 34% in the country that view President Bush favorably. 

What was Nixon's favorability score when he retired?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 2, 2006)

Mark L said:
			
		

> I offer no proof, but _my observation_ is that the posts are neither few nor random.


 
Please feel free to use the 'Ignore' option listed under the User CP area.


----------



## Mark L (Mar 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please feel free to use the 'Ignore' option listed under the User CP area.


No thanks, I often find the ridiculous to be entertaining.  Lighten up (not on the issues, on your inter-personal skills), this forum is for discussion.  If oppossing views to yours can't be expressed without getting this response, you aren't engaging in discussion, are you.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 2, 2006)

_Moderator Note._ 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our general posting rules regarding conduct. showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-G Ketchmark / shesulsa-
-MT Sr. Moderator-


----------



## Kenpoist (Mar 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> All those who think the response to Hurricane Katrina was the United States finest hour, please ignore this thread.
> 
> All else, we have been asked to put off "The Blame Game", while there is still work to do. Well, I think there is no time like the present. And, I certainly think the President is not able to lead a successful investigation into "what went right, and what didn't" (he couldn't find out Karl Rove spoke to reports for two years?)
> 
> ...


 
First of all, this is the worst disaster in US History - so we should cut FEMA  and everyone else a little slack. FEMA&#8217;s  role is too come in after a disaster to help organize things, but the initial responsibility lies with the State. 

There were many heroes to come out of this:  The Coast Guard saved about 30,000 people and the National Guard saved about 10,000.

So you need to place &#8220;blame&#8221;!  Here you go:

1) Mother Nature

2)City Planners and Engineers
 The city has been doing studies on the levy for the last 30+ years and they knew that if anything above a CAT  3 were to hit, that there would be total destruction. Should have put a little more money into the levy and a little less on &#8220;BEADS and HURRICANES&#8221; (for all you Mardi Gras people).

2) The Mayor 
He was too busy &#8220;blaming everyone&#8221; and putting all his high society friends in the local 5 star hotel that he had no plan of attack (remember all those buses that were just lying around which could have aided in the evacuation of citizens).

3)Governor
The incompetent Governor (who has the responsibilty to call on the National Guard &#8211; not the President ) couldn&#8217;t make a decision to save her life (again &#8211; no Emergency Preparedness Plan in order and she waited to call out the Gaurd)

4)People of New Orleans 
Many of the people who died, tragically, stayed in New Orleans to ride out the storm, thus causing their own demise.

That is just one of the many problems of the left-wing movement &#8211; they want the government to bail everyone out (welfare/subsidized housing etc..) rather than have people be responsible for themselves.  

You are going to actually believe anything Michael Moore (Moron) has to say? His hatred for the United States gives him no credibility as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 2, 2006)

Mark L said:
			
		

> No thanks, I often find the ridiculous to be entertaining. Lighten up (not on the issues, on your inter-personal skills), this forum is for discussion. If oppossing views to yours can't be expressed without getting this response, you aren't engaging in discussion, are you.


 
My comment was meant in a "Lighten up" mode ... sorry if that didn't come through in the typing. 

Although, I am wondering about the use of 'ridiculous' as a noun, rather than correctly, as an adjective. Almost seems like, as one used to put it, poking the bears.


----------



## Mark L (Mar 2, 2006)

Fair enough.  I'm not really poking the bears, not really.  Picking on my grammar, eh?  OK, the gloves are off.  I can't recall the author but I do recall a quote fragment describing the scope of something as spanning "the ridiculous to the sublime", I liked the sound of that, so I stole it.

Some discussions here get rather heated, with passionate discourse coming from both sides.  Though not always the case, sometimes the forest gets lost in the trees, and it can be entertaining to watch the course of debate.  That was my point, even though I suspect we see the world from different socio-political perspectives I enjoy watching all the argument.  So I won't ignore posters simply because I disagree, only if they're blatant sphincters.

My reply that you called me on was simply to note that you have voiced your objections to Bush on more than a "few random" occasions, which is certainly your right.  BTW, my vote was against Kerry.  And Bush is starting to piss me off.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Mar 3, 2006)

New video shows Lousiana Gov. Blanco assuring Bush administration hours after Katrina hit that the "levees are intact". 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060303/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katrina_video_35;_ylt=Aj0PD8_E8nRCEmzLqfPNSd0bLisB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 3, 2006)

Yes, it seems that Governor Blanco was wrong about a fact on the ground, in the aftermath of a hurricane. I note the quote indicating a caveate in her statement. 



> In the video of the conference call, Blanco appears uncertain about the reliability of her information and cautioned that the situation "could change."
> Blanco said floodwaters were rising in parts of the city "where we have waters that are 8 to 10 feet deep, and we have people swimming in there."


 
What did the President say before the hurricane? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060301/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katrina_video



> Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "*We are fully prepared.*"


 
Maybe ... not so much, eh?


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 3, 2006)

Wow, so a mistake by one is not worthy of blame while the mistake of another is? Why can't we just realize that this was a confusing and hectic disaster that took all parties by surprise and exceeded (by far) the expectations of all....as nature often does. If anyone says nature is capable of being contained, understood, and completely expected...they simply have not experienced it enough.

There were big mistakes made by lots of people in this disaster, how can we recover and prepare (as best as possible) for the next disaster if we can't honestly and tactfully examine the actual issues. What exactly does assigning blame do for those touched by the disaster or those who might be touched in the future? Instead of assigning blame, I propose we simply examine the mistakes made and take steps to rectify the issues for the sake of future generations.

Just my opinions,
7sm


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 3, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Wow, so a mistake by one is not worthy of blame while the mistake of another is? Why can't we just realize that this was a confusing and hectic disaster that took all parties by surprise and exceeded (by far) the expectations of all....as nature often does. If anyone says nature is capable of being contained, understood, and completely expected...they simply have not experienced it enough.
> 
> There were big mistakes made by lots of people in this disaster, how can we recover and prepare (as best as possible) for the next disaster if we can't honestly and tactfully examine the actual issues. What exactly does assigning blame do for those touched by the disaster or those who might be touched in the future? Instead of assigning blame, I propose we simply examine the mistakes made and take steps to rectify the issues for the sake of future generations.
> 
> ...


Well I stand by two opinions I have previously stated on this issue:

1. There is plenty of blame to go around for everyone.

-however-

2. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if citizens are swimming in water 8'-10' deep in the city limits that a MAJOR crisis has occurred and help needs to be deployed immediately, and that they will need disaster relief on a large scale.

-and-

3. When things are happening that fast, effective communication can be lacking to say the least.  But then again, refer to #2.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 3, 2006)

> "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
> 
> - Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, NPR Morning Edition, 05-25-01


 
Well, it seems that Mr. Norquist was successful. 

With the appointment of President Bush, and his enactions of programs that cripple the effectiveness of government, we had the drowning of the Federal Government, as manifested in city of New Orleans; which for years had been described as a 'Bathtub'.

and 7starmantis ... who is absolving Governor Blanco from blame for her incorrect statement? 

I suppose it is a good thing should could mobilize her state National Guard units to help rescue people stuck in the batht ... oh, wait ... her national guard was deployed to Iraq.


----------



## Mark L (Mar 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> With the appointment of President Bush ...


Election, not appointment. But that's been gone over ad nauseum already.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 3, 2006)

We do not know how (or even if) the 9 members of the United States Supreme Court voted. But we do know that it was a 5 - 4 decision to stop the counting of the votes in Florida. 

Even if repeated to the point of regurgitation, this remains fact.


----------



## modarnis (Mar 3, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Well I stand by two opinions I have previously stated on this issue:
> 
> 1. There is plenty of blame to go around for everyone.
> 
> ...




And the fastest way to deploy any resources was for local plan, local resources, and implementation of that plan, bolstered by the FEMA response.  How pray tell was all this federal help going to get dispersed when the communication systems had failed, and there wer not plans B, C, D, and E as fallback contingencies.  (things like radios that don't require an intricate repeater system so the Mayor could communicate with people who he needed to communicate with)

Having been involved in numerous disaster managment plans and drills in my previous career, the most basic thing missing was not the Fed response, it was a single leader (incident commander) who delegates jobs and resources and implements the plan and contingencies when parts of the plan don't work.  This simple disaster system is taught to police, fire, EMS people all over the country when an incident will exceed initially available resources.  That leader, in this case Mayor Nagin needs to oversee and hold accountable all of the individuals he delegates critical components of the plan to.  He would then direct any FEMA resources to the appropriate department head (medical, police, fire, food distribution etc)

I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around.  The local response still deserves a greater share of it based on acceptable standards and practices for mass casualty incident management.  Whether its 5 patients in a motor vehicle crash or 100,000 in a flooded city, incident command structure is designed to facilitate the dovetailing of diverse resources to acheive a common goal


----------



## Mark L (Mar 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> We do not know how (or even if) the 9 members of the United States Supreme Court voted. But we do know that it was a 5 - 4 decision to stop the counting of the votes in Florida.
> 
> Even if repeated to the point of regurgitation, this remains fact.


It is aslo a fact that Bush won election to the Presidency by vote of the electoral college, which is the only way to gain that office.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 3, 2006)

Mark L said:
			
		

> It is aslo a fact that Bush won election to the Presidency by vote of the electoral college, which is the only way to gain that office.


 
That is a causation. If the Supreme Court did not stop the counting of votes, the votes of the electoral college might have been different. 

And there are several other ways to gain that office. 

Does the name Gerald Ford ring a bell?

How about Andrew Johnson?


----------



## Mark L (Mar 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That is a causation. If the Supreme Court did not stop the counting of votes, the votes of the electoral college might have been different.
> 
> And there are several other ways to gain that office.
> 
> ...


The contention of the Florida votes was settled through the legal avenues put in place to resolve those and other conflicts. The fact that you don't happen to agree with the decision or the consequent outcome doesn't render the election invalid. And it is not strictly a causation, those casting votes within the electoral college are not bound by the popular vote within their respective states. If they felt the will of the Floridians had been usurped by the Supremes they had every right to turn the tide in favor of the democrat. Clearly, they did not.  

Yes, Michael, I am aware of the other avenues. I guess I need to be more careful about what I type, but I thought it was pretty clear we were talking about Bush seeking an open office, not trying to fill one vacated before term expiration. But I'll bet you knew that.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> oh, wait ... her national guard was deployed to Iraq.


Yes, there were no national guard troops in LA. What were we thinking!  




			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Well I stand by *two* opinions I have previously stated on this issue:
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.


 :idunno:    hehe

7sm


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 3, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> For those of you that missed it....Michaeledward doesn't like the president, and will go to great lengths to blame him for everything from the Gulf War, to the break up of David Lee Roth and Van Halen.
> 
> I don't support the President on a number of issues. However, these people go to great lengths to create conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. To use the Huffington Post and Michael Moore as talking points, is about the same as me using Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock to argue science.
> 
> ...




I disagree with something you said. 

One can argue science from Kirk and Spock, but nothing from Mr. Moore. Well that is my opinion of him at least. He plays his opinion off as science and fact, and then makes a personal agenda movie, and calls it fact while he reacts the same way when he is caught off guard with a qustion he is not ready to handle or answer from someone in the crowd, when he is in front of the press. 

Sorry for being off topic, just had to comment.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 4, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> shesulsa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :whip:Heh heh - Cold meds, what can I say? :ultracool


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 4, 2006)

Today, we read this ... ... ...



> George Barisich, president of the United Commercial Fisherman's Association, has been selling anti-FEMA T-shirts since last fall, a reflection of his frustration with the federal government's response to the storm that left him homeless and unemployed.


 
So, he's a little disappointed in the response of the Federal Emergency Management Authority during and after a Federal Emergency. No surprise there.



> he handed a shirt to a fellow Katrina victim as he was picking up canned goods at a charity's relief tent,


 
It seems that he is being charitable, and good humored, as he gives away one of his T-Shirts. 



> He was cited by a group of  *Homeland Security* officials for selling a T-shirt on federal property - in this case, near a FEMA center in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Chalmette, La.


 
Say, What ?



> "If we ignored this violation, you could have potentially 20 to 30 people standing out in front of the (FEMA) center, obstructing things," says Dean Boyd, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesman. "We've got a duty and a job under the law."


 
He's kidding, right? 



> Barisich says he intends to fight the $75 ticket in court


 
A fine ... for giving away a t-Shirt ... get out of here.



> Barisich says he was ticketed after six DHS officers gathered at his truck.


 
Wait a second, it was Department of Homeland Security officers gathering around Mr. Barisich, and he gets a ticket from FEMA because of a gathering of six people looking at his T-Shirt ....

Words can not describe the stupidity of this.



> *Flooded by Katrina! Forgotten by FEMA! What's Next, Mr. Bush?"*


 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/femacriticsshirtgetshimtangledupinticket


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 4, 2006)

What exactly is the topic of this thread, or is it simply a "bash bush" thread?

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 4, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What exactly is the topic of this thread, or is it simply a "bash bush" thread?
> 
> 7sm


 
Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, the White House, through spokesperson Scott McKlellan, and a number of other sources said, repeatedly; "Now is not the time to play 'The Blame Game'."

Time has passed.

And now, we are hearing that .. "_A White House spokesman said that President Bush was now focused on the future, not the past._"

from Harry Shearer



> Perhaps Tuesday the WH press corps will . . . ask Scott McClellan: Since the President said right after the disaster that that was no time for finger-pointing or the blame game, that blame could be assessed later, and he now says he's not focused on the past, just when did the Katrina "moment of accountability" occur, and how did we miss it?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 13, 2006)

Debunking Katrina Myths


----------



## Marginal (Mar 13, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What exactly is the topic of this thread, or is it simply a "bash bush" thread?
> 
> 7sm


Of course not. You heard Frist. Only evil traitors do that.


----------

