A serious question for the old timers

[DGhost]

Point being, if this is the best the "old timers" have to offer, then they shouldn't be looking at the younger generations as the cause of failure.

But since you asked: We probably wouldn't be fighting a misguided war in Iraq, and we would have saved a lot more lives in the South because we wouldn't have had the FEMA/DHS/Brown f*ckup.

honestly, i don't think it would have made a difference. there are way too many people in the government that have their own interests that one person, even the president, really doesn't make a difference any more. people squabble over the the presidency like it is a huge thing - the reality is that it is a figurehead position and most of everything happens at different and unrelated levels in the government. people after their own self interests and such.

the problems would still have existed and it probably wouldn't have been handled any differently. Bush is just an easy face that people can put on it.

you wanna make change happen? i got a few ideas about it that go a bit deeper than anything i've heard suggested so far.

[GT98]

But since you asked: We probably wouldn't be fighting a misguided war in Iraq, and we would have saved a lot more lives in the South because we wouldn't have had the FEMA/DHS/Brown f*ckup.

So your saying that the Goverments of New Orlenes and Louisanna didn't have a hand in this **** up? Its so much easier just to point fingers at the high man on the totem pole then it is to say Hey I ****ed uo, which is what excactly happened here. It was a failure of the Goverment, from local upto Federal levels. Not till the National Guard/Active duty came to town did things start to turn around. I'll save my tirade about people who live in the south for another day...

[Wombat]

So your saying that the Goverments of New Orlenes and Louisanna didn't have a hand in this **** up? Its so much easier just to point fingers at the high man on the totem pole then it is to say Hey I ****ed uo, which is what excactly happened here. It was a failure of the Goverment, from local upto Federal levels. Not till the National Guard/Active duty came to town did things start to turn around. I'll save my tirade about people who live in the south for another day...

Nope, not compared to the feds. Once the disaster happens, the feds claim all responsibility. Quoting a friend of mine:

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

Department of Homeland Security's December 2004 National Response Plan clearly indicates that in these situations, the federal government will pre-empt state and local efforts and provide immediate assistance to the affected area.

According to DHS' December 2004 National Response Plan (NRP), "catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, call for heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. The response plan listed "guiding principles" to govern the response to these major events. The "Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response" make clear that, in these "catastrophic" cases, the federal government will operate independently to provide assistance, rather than simply supporting or cajoling state authorities:

* The primary mission is to save lives; protect critical infrastructure, property, and the environment; contain the event; and preserve national security.
* Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude.
* Identified Federal response resources will deploy and begin necessary operations as required to commence life-safety activities.
* Notification and full coordination with States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources. States are urged to notify and coordinate with local governments regarding a proactive Federal response.
* State and local governments are encouraged to conduct collaborative planning with the Federal Government as a part of "steady-state" preparedness for catastrophic incidents."

The NRP also says that, when responding to a catastrophic incident, the federal government should start emergency operations even in the absence of clear assessment of the situation. "A detailed and credible common operating picture may not be achievable for 24 to 48 hours (or longer) after the incident," the NRP's "Catastrophic Annex" states. "As a result, response activities must begin without the benefit of a detailed or complete situation and critical needs assessment."

I'm interested in what you think the city and state officials could have done to prevent this, or at least mitigate it. Fortify the levees so they could handle a Cat-4 Hurricane? Well they had that project in the works before the federal funds were cut. Working pump-stations? Well surprising thing, the federal funding was cut there too... not that it would have mattered because within hours of the overflow/breaking of the levees the pump-stations would still not have been able to keep the city from flooding.
******************************************

Not to mention the fact that it was considered one of the top three national disaster possibilities, back in 2001.

It also proves that the actions of this administration are just a power grab, and that we are no better equipped to handle a natural or man-made disaster than we were pre-9/11.

[cjolley]

... and that we are no better equipped to handle a natural or man-made disaster than we were pre-9/11.

We ar less equipped.
Bush replaced Witt with witless.
Chuck

[Dr Mordrid]

Sorry guys, but whatever the DHS paperwork says the President has very limited powers in terms of natural disasters.

First of all he can declare an emergency, which he did days before the hurrican hit. This is a pro-forma declaration that frees up emergency fundiing and the pre-positioning of FEMA trucks and resources but little else. The pre-positioning went very well, and the fact is they were positioned right next to the Red Cross and federal troops well before the hurricane hit.

The President can offer the use of federal troops to the Governor of a state, which Bush also did before the hurricane hit, but he cannot impose them on a state except in the case of an insurrection because of Constitutional limits. A hurricane does not meet the definition of an insurrection.

Louisiana's governor refused his offer not just once but several times. Today tape came out of her talking with one of her underlings that she feared the federal troops would somehow harm "good people"

Compounding this she also delayed several days before activating her own national guard troops to secure the city. She also turned down several offers from Florida, no amatures at hurricane preparation, to help them organize their response.

Now comes the big question: where were the Red Cross and FEMA if they were all packed and ready to move in? Now we know because the Red Cross spilled the beans: the GOVERNOR, thorough the state emergency management agency, TOLD THEM TO STAY OUT!!

Reason: they figured if aid came in the people at and around the superdome they would stay in the city instead of moving on to locations outside the city. What wonderful logic :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

How in HELL did she expect them go get there without the military's helicopters and tracked vehicles; flap their arms?

Next comes the mayor of New Orleans. This absolute morons excuse for not following the cities established emergency plan and using school and city busses to move people out ahead of time is that he couldn't depend on his drivers to stay on the job in the face of a hurricane

Personally I'd have handed out keys to the damned things to anyone with a valid drivers liscense if it meant saving peoples lives. Hell, use DPW workers, cops, firemen or whoever is available if the regular drivers punk out.

Then comes his masterpiece of management during a crisis: post-hurricane he decided that 300 or so of his firemen needed some time off. Well and good, rotation is a good thing if done properly.

Problem is that instead of just sending these guys to a hotel for R & R he sent them on a paid trip to....LAS VEGAS !!?? When asked why there he replied: "we're a party city!"

Uh-huh....and no one will mind that money that could have been used to provide MRE's, water or other necessities to the people at/around the Superdome was used for a trip to Vegas

So; we have a federal govt. limited by law as to what it can do and state/local leadership that acted like deer with ADHD staring into the hurricanes headlights.

Wonderful....

IMO the feds may have been running at 90% (good for a federal agency), but the state and local governments were almost totally AWOL during this disater.

Something happened they were totally unprepared for and they are now trying to shovel the blame off on the feds to cover their own asses.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

@Doc: Yup, it's just us liberal commies who think FEMA is f***ed up.


As to the topic.
People are smarter on average, but the spread is wider.
Plus, nobody actually works at learning a trade.
We have to babysit everyone that comes into our house (painters, electricians, pumbers, tree-trimmers, etc, etc)
Why? Because if you don't watch them they will screw up.
All these people have businesses where they only do ONE thing, and they don't know how to do it.
It almost always turns out that if I had time I could do a better job, and I am a mediocre handyman at best.
chuck

[Jessterw]

As far as the whole Katrina thing goes, everyone damn well dropped the ball except for the American people who not only donated record amounts to relief efforts, but also took action in many other ways. Which, I believe, also says something about the rest of this discussion.

[KvHagedorn]

Bush should have declared an insurrection. Whatever. It's a formality, and a president and commander in chief has exactly as much power as he chooses to use. Look up "executive order" and see. When this pathetic excuse for a governor decided to let people suffer and die over politics she effectively laid down her responsibility. Bush should have taken control immediately and done what was right, regardless of the semantics of the situation, and backslapped any advisors that tried to stop him. He'd be a hero now instead of taking a bullet for that moron and having to listen to all this shit about hating black people.

Forget New Orleans for a second.. I saw some reporting from Gulfport (another state, another governor) showing people who had ridden out the storm living on the edge now.. just a trickle of water, ice, and supplies coming in, and this guy was having to ride his bike all over town looking for where they were parked THAT day. These folks have no electricity or clean water, and their jobs and cars have been washed away. Who's lending these guys a helping hand?

[rylan]

Those people in the other state are white. They obviously don't need help, and if they got help it would be racism. The media won't report on it because they can't turn it into a big scandal.

[Jessterw]

Getting way off topic aren't we... I'm just as guilty, but honestly, there are threads for Hurricane Katrina discussions already.

[spadnos]

One thing to note - apparently most of the information that DocM cited was false. I remember hearing statements from the red cross saying that they wouldn't have hurricane shelters inside the city, becuase they wouldn't be safe. There was agreement all around that they would have to wait until it was safe to get back in and help.

This article https://mediamatters.org/items/200509120001 describes how the story has changed over the past week.

Of course, if you look at Fox news or several conservative news sources, you'll only see the new version of the "facts".

There was some consternation over the fact that the governor of Louisiana CAN'T declare martial law (not legally, anyway).

There was never a refusal by the mayor or governor to allowing federal help - they were asking for it at least two days before the hurricane hit.

look here for a timeline: http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

So, as always, you have to look at several sources, and look for actual facts, before you can figure out what went wrong, and whom to blame (if that ends up being inmportant to you).

- Steve

[DGhost]

Bush should have declared an insurrection. Whatever. It's a formality, and a president and commander in chief has exactly as much power as he chooses to use. Look up "executive order" and see. When this pathetic excuse for a governor decided to let people suffer and die over politics she effectively laid down her responsibility. Bush should have taken control immediately and done what was right, regardless of the semantics of the situation, and backslapped any advisors that tried to stop him. He'd be a hero now instead of taking a bullet for that moron and having to listen to all this shit about hating black people.

lets see you put 20 years into building a political career, dealing with the death of people on a daily basis for the last 4 years, and then see you throw everything away in the span of a week.

[KvHagedorn]

lets see you put 20 years into building a political career, dealing with the death of people on a daily basis for the last 4 years, and then see you throw everything away in the span of a week.

Not necessarily. It is a risk, there can be no doubt of that, but walking out on that limb because it is the right thing to do -- and saving lives because of it -- bring great credit in the event of success, just as it would great discredit in the event of failure. In the event of success, congress would be forced to support the move, though they might be jealous of the exercise of executive power. I watched as they discussed this division of powers just today in the Roberts hearings, and the most pertinent point which would apply to this would have to be that with congressional support, the president's power is at its greatest, but without it his power is at its lowest ebb. Such action would almost certainly have vast popular support as well (which would compel the consent of congress) and would allow the president to get away with such direct action. Presidents do not really have to worry about precedents as judges do, since the consequences of such flexing are rapidly visited upon the executive for better or worse. The presidents who were most grievously guilty of taking direct action as an executive were probably Lincoln and Truman, and posterity has ranked them high in the pantheon of great chief executives, though they faced great pressure at the time.