PDA

View Full Version : Could Bush Have Done More


Pages : [1] 2

Dara
09-08-2005, 10:38 AM
Could Bush have done more?

We know, I believe that there were failures at all three levels of government. Well, the highest elected official is the president. I read over and over that he couldn’t have stepped in and done more, about how hamstrung he was by the governor. How he deferred to her regarding federal aid. But is that true? Could he have done more?

I think there are many ways he could have done more. Could he have appointed a more qualified FEMA head, one who might have been the first to know about people dying in the convention center, not the last? That’s just one issue. Could he have not gutted FEMA and then left it in charge of disasters? We’re still hearing about major glitches in rescue efforts. Today. So, is he coordinating this? Is Brown? Chertoff? Blanco? What role is Bush playing, besides photo ops and platitudes? I definitely want to discuss all of that. This discussion started in the “angry” thread and maybe that’s why it got ugly. Maybe keeping it all in once place will let us have the actual, focused, civil discussion we’re capable of. But this is something we should want to know. What can and can Bush do? What did he do wrong? If we want to know that about Blanco and Nagin (and we apparently do, because we’re discussing it extensively), we should want to know it about him. If we don’t, why don’t we? But I’m going to start with one of the key questions. Could Bush have gone over the governor’s head and federalize the National Guard?



When there is civil unrest, as in the LA riots, the president apparently can federalize the troops. So how is the shooting in the streets, rapes and roving gangs in the Convention Center not civil unrest? We’ve seen that a natural disaster has different rules, but what about when the natural disaster brings about the civil unrest? Can he use the Insurrection Act then? Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/site/newsweek/page/5/) thinks so:

Washington, too, was slow to react to the crisis. The Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was reluctant for the military to take a lead role in disaster relief, a job traditionally performed by FEMA and by the National Guard, which is commanded by state governors. President Bush could have "federalized" the National Guard in an instant. Up to now, the Bush administration has not hesitated to sweep aside the opinions of lawyers on such matters as prisoners' rights. But after Katrina, a strange paralysis set in. For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. Beginning early in the week, Justice Department lawyers presented arguments for federalizing the Guard, but Defense Department lawyers fretted about untrained 19-year-olds trying to enforce local laws, according to a senior law-enforcement official who requested anonymity citing the delicate nature of the discussions. (I hope that in the coming days and weeks, those unnamed sources tell their stories to the various investigative entities.)

That seems to suggest Bush could have but chose not to federalize the Guard. So does this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680.html):

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

This (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-katrina1sep01,0,7731365.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines)suggests that Bush at least considered using the Insurrection Act:


The Pentagon also authorized Adm. Timothy Keating, head of the Northern Command, to lay plans for possibly deploying active-duty troops — a move that can be ordered only by the president under the rarely used Insurrection Act.

If plans were made to deploy active-duty troops, and that could be done only under the Insurrection Act, doesn't that mean the Insurrection Act could have been used?


The article is date September 1.


I understand that the governor wouldn’t turn over control, but can’t Bush take it? This all seems to suggest he could and chose not to. If she did the abysmal job she’s being blamed for, why wouldn’t he? The worst she did, the more it seems Bush would have been obligated to take over. How could he not, if he could?


Barbara Stock, (http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/bstock/bio.shtml) "a regular contributor to AmericanDaily, ReNewAmerica, Bushcountry, RepublicanDailyNews, The Judson Cox Newsletter, and Prudent Politics," says he reportedly (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/stock/050906) did] use it.


There is reason to believe that President Bush, running out of patience with Blanco by Saturday morning, used the only option that remained to him. It is being reported that Bush went around Blanco and utilized the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard and send in active military troops to take over the rescue and put down the lawlessness that had taken over New Orleans. The forces that Bush had poised to move into the city, swung into action. It was no accident that the major, organized rescues began when the sun came up Saturday morning. At 6:30 AM, when the sky over New Orleans was suddenly filled with military helicopters and military convoys poured into the streets, they were there because of President Bush, not Governor Blanco.

Now, realize that's a conservative talking, so take it with the same grain of salt you'd use for a liberal. I also reserve judgment because there is no named source. But since it's a GOP reporter, I thought if I gave a disclaimer, some of you would prefer to read the information and judge it for yourself.

If true, if he had this as an option, even his only option, why did he wait so long? Did he have to? Was he, as some posters suggested, thinking politically, unwilling to destroy his and /or Blanco's career?

I just want the truth.

JBean
09-08-2005, 10:46 AM
I think everyone could have done more. I think FEMA needs to look seriously at it's leadership and make the necessary changes across the board.

But as I have consistently posted, how can we expect the highest rung on the ladder to be able to support evrything when the lower rungs have all given way?

Sure, with hindsight it's easy to say what should have happened with regards to FEMA, but it just isn;t structured as a first repsonder. No matter how much we would like it to be, it isn't. The idea is to aid and assist a city/ state that is already helping itself.
If the lower levels are not holdng up their end of the deal it is virtually impossible for the President or anyone else to save the day. We just watched it happen.
I'll challenge individuals to do their homework on election day.The governor was elected. Do the candidates in your area have your safety as a priority? I can honestly say I have never even looked into it.

Lowest level to highest level had to do their part and it did not happen.

Dara
09-08-2005, 10:50 AM
I think everyone could have done more. I think FEMA needs to look seriously at it's leadership and make the necessary changes across the board.

But as I have consistently posted, how can we expect the highest rung on the ladder to be able to support evrything when the lower rungs have all given way? Because that's what we expect. We expect the best he could do, and if that wasn't done, it's a problem. He couldn't fix everything but what didn't he do that he could have? If Bush could have federalized the guard and chose not to, or chose not to until Saturday, aren't you concerned?

Do you not care if his policies and procedures and decisions made this worse?

JBean
09-08-2005, 10:54 AM
Because that's what we expect. We expect the best he could do, and if that wasn't done, it's a problem. He couldn't fix everything but what didn't he do that he could have? If Bush could have federalized the guard and chose not to, or chose not to until Saturday, aren't you concerned?

Do you not care if his policies and procedures and decisions made this worse?I clearly have different expectations than you. I expect my locality to have my backside and the feds to have their backside within a reasonable amount of time. I'm not counting on FEMA as my first respnder. It's just common sense.
Bush's decision's on federal intervention are based on imformation he gets from the Governor. garbage in garbage out.

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:00 AM
I clearly have different expectations than you. I expect my locality to have my backside and the feds to have their backside within a reasonable amount of time. I'm not counting on FEMA as my first respnder. It's just common sense.
Clearly. Obviously.

And you clearly don't understand my post if you refer to "first responder."

Bush's decision's on federal intervention are based on imformation he gets from the Governor. garbage in garbage out. So, he was as uninformed as Chertoff and Brown. These guys are the holy trinity of oblivion! The rest of us knew how dire the situation was. And he possibly had the power to take steps that could have save lives. If he didn't do so, it's because he didn't know what was going on? That's reassuring.

less0305
09-08-2005, 11:03 AM
The rest of us knew how dire the situation was. And he possibly had the power to take steps that could have save lives. If he didn't do so, it's because he didn't know what was going on? That's reassuring.


I sure hope my President, Governor OR Mayor isn't sitting around making decisions on what WE see on Fox, MSNBC, and et al. If they're sitting before the TV watching Geraldo and getting their intelligence there - we're all doomed.

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:10 AM
I sure hope my President, Governor OR Mayor isn't sitting around making decisions on what WE see on Fox, MSNBC, and et al. If they're sitting before the TV watching Geraldo and getting their intelligence there - we're all doomed.
I sure hope my president knows the situation and doesn't need TV. But it appears we are doomed, because his chosen leaders didn't know what was widely reported. And I guess according to some of you, neither did Bush.

People were dying. People were being raped. Rescue efforts were halted because of snipers. Did the president know that? If he did and he saw that the situation wasn't improving, he couldn't figure out more help was needed? He is really that passive?

Oh, and if you don't want those in charge relying on the media, you must have a problem with Chertoff using imaginary headlines to justify decisions.

JBean
09-08-2005, 11:12 AM
Clearly. Obviously.

And you clearly don't understand my post if you refer to "first responder."

So, he was as uninformed as Chertoff and Brown. These guys are the holy trinity of oblivion! The rest of us knew how dire the situation was. And he possibly had the power to take steps that could have save lives. If he didn't do so, it's because he didn't know what was going on? That's reassuring.Sorry if I misunderstood you.
We have hindsight now Dara. It's easy to say what the President should have done because we know the outcome. WE now know that the city/ste blew it. Big time.
Armed with that information, I agree with you, the President should have done more to overpower the inept leaders the voters in LA put in office.

If you exepct the Presdient to act on News reports?! That is positively frightening.

Larkit
09-08-2005, 11:16 AM
Have any of you ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Do you understand what 'First Responder' means?

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 11:18 AM
Have any of you ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Do you understand what 'First Responder' means?

Yep, been there, done that in a wildfire evacuation.

less0305
09-08-2005, 11:19 AM
I knew I shouldn't have come to this thread!!!! :banghead:

Larkit
09-08-2005, 11:19 AM
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
We have hindsight now Dara. It's easy to say what the President should have done because we know the outcome. WE now know that the city/ste blew it. Big time.
Armed with that information, I agree with you, the President should have done more to overpower the inept leaders the voters in LA put in office.
Such as what?

Larkit
09-08-2005, 11:20 AM
Yep, been there, done that in a wildfire evacuation.
Good. You're one, at least.

How about Posse Comitatus? Ever read the Act?

Larkit
09-08-2005, 11:23 AM
Clearly. Obviously.

And you clearly don't understand my post if you refer to "first responder."

So, he was as uninformed as Chertoff and Brown. These guys are the holy trinity of oblivion! The rest of us knew how dire the situation was. And he possibly had the power to take steps that could have save lives. If he didn't do so, it's because he didn't know what was going on? That's reassuring.Dara, do you know what the Posse Comitatus Act says? Do you understand what federalizing troops and operation means, in terms of the constitution?

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:24 AM
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
We have hindsight now Dara. It's easy to say what the President should have done because we know the outcome. WE now know that the city/ste blew it. Big time. As I've said all along, that's more reason for him to take action. I understand state and local government are first responders. But how long should it take if the first responders fail before the president exercises his powers and saves them? What do you think is reasonable?

Armed with that information, I agree with you, the President should have done more to overpower the inept leaders the voters in LA put in office. I can't really see why that's so hard to see. If the leaders were inept, and he could have acted, he should have. It just seems kind of obvious, and I want to know that if we get inept state and local leaders at the next disaster, the president will do what is in his power to help in a reasonable time period. Reasonable. Not as a first responder. Not as the first course of action. But when it is reasonable.

and If you exepct the Presdient to act on News reports?! That is positively frightening.
When I do say that, be frightened. But that's a twisting of my words, and just the kind of thing I see every time I bring up criticism of Bush. LOL. I'm sorry, but it's so predictable.

However, if news is so widely reported and was conflicting with information he was getting from the governor, shouldn't he maybe think he better find out. Except his two appointees, who are also his eyes and ears, didn't know the basics either. Do you really think if the governor is so inept as most of Bush's defenders are claiming, she could fool him into thinking all was well on the streets of NO and that she had everything under control? If we all heard all those reports of aid being turned away and violence, and it's all her fault and all her decisions, I don't expect him to ignore news reports. There's a discrepancy. Find out what's going on. I'd hope he didn't need the news to keep him involved, since HS told us they were going to be coordinating the effort ( see the White House site) but since his own appointees apparently couldn't keep him informed maybe he should at least monitor the news next time. Or appoint, you know, competent people.

Larkit
09-08-2005, 11:25 AM
I think everyone could have done more. I think FEMA needs to look seriously at it's leadership and make the necessary changes across the board.

But as I have consistently posted, how can we expect the highest rung on the ladder to be able to support evrything when the lower rungs have all given way?

Sure, with hindsight it's easy to say what should have happened with regards to FEMA, but it just isn;t structured as a first repsonder. No matter how much we would like it to be, it isn't. The idea is to aid and assist a city/ state that is already helping itself.
If the lower levels are not holdng up their end of the deal it is virtually impossible for the President or anyone else to save the day. We just watched it happen.
I'll challenge individuals to do their homework on election day.The governor was elected. Do the candidates in your area have your safety as a priority? I can honestly say I have never even looked into it.

Lowest level to highest level had to do their part and it did not happen.
How about the refugess themselves? Could they have done anything to help themselves?

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:26 AM
Dara, do you know what the Posse Comitatus Act says? Do you understand what federalizing troops and operation means, interms of the constitution? I've been researching it for days, but am still not clear. If you can shed some light, please do. That is why I started this thread.

I understand (roughly) that the president can't federalize in a national disaster, but in a time of civil unrest, he can. I assume that's why it appears plans were made for him to federalize the troops (see the cite in my initial post).

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:29 AM
I knew I shouldn't have come to this thread!!!! :banghead:
It's up to you whether or not to participate, but I am trying to discuss this HUGE issue. I know some simply want to blame the mayor and governor, and we should certainly look at them hard and hold them accountable. But not to the exclusion of the federal government.

Why is there such resistance to questioning Bush when there is no such resistance to talking about the state and local level?

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:30 AM
How about the refugess themselves? Could they have done anything to help themselves?
Probably not by the time they were being raped and shot at.

At which point if the president had the power to stop the violence, why didn't he?

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:32 AM
And, you know, this question is ongoing. Who is in charge now? Why don't we know? Why are we hearing stories of aid still not getting through, along with the stories of big successes? Brown, widely criticized, still has the president's praise and approval. He and Chertoff are both taking a lot of heat but are they still running things?

I think that's a very good reason to be discussing the president's response.

JBean
09-08-2005, 11:38 AM
As I've said all along, that's more reason for him to take action. I understand state and local government are first responders. But how long should it take if the first responders fail before the president exercises his powers and saves them? What do you think is reasonable? Honestly I have no idea. I would have to fdo a lot more reasearch and get input from experts to understand the pros and cons of that.

I can't really see why that's so hard to see. If the leaders were inept, and he could have acted, he should have. It just seems kind of obvious, and I want to know that if we get inept state and local leaders at the next disaster, the president will do what is in his power to help in a reasonable time period. Reasonable. Not as a first responder. Not as the first course of action. But when it is reasonable. I don't think anyone knew beforehand that the Governor , etc were inept? This came to be known during this horrible situation. As I say we have hindsight now. Perhaps this should be the catalyst for tighter controls on this federal type takeover.
and
When I do say that, be frightened. But that's a twisting of my words, and just the kind of thing I see every time I bring up criticism of Bush. LOL. I'm sorry, but it's so predictable. Dara! I have no interest in twisting your words, not my style. i just misunderstood you. Doesn't bother me if you criticize Bush! I just don't think he's the one that blew it.

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:44 AM
Honestly I have no idea. I would have to fdo a lot more reasearch and get input from experts to understand the pros and cons of that.

I don't think anyone knew beforehand that the Governor , etc were inept? This came to be known during this horrible situation. As I say we have hindsight now. Perhaps this should be the catalyst for tighter controls on this federal type takeover. I agree. I think every aspect bears scrutiny.

But I don't think we can use "hindsight" to derail a discussion of Bush's actions unless we use it for everyone.

Dara! I have no interst in twisting your words, not my style. i just misunderstood you.
Thank you. Sorry I jumped the gun. I've just been experiencing that every time I raise this subject and I do think it's something we should discuss. I don't know why it's such a problem to bring in some article and ask some questions. I even looked at the conservative view!

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 11:49 AM
Good. You're one, at least.

How about Posse Comitatus? Ever read the Act?

Actually, nope. Only know the CA penal code re posse comitatus, enough to know what we could do in an emergency; have never read the federal statutes on it. Just assuming the intent is about the same.

JBean
09-08-2005, 11:55 AM
I agree. I think every aspect bears scrutiny.

But I don't think we can use "hindsight" to derail a discussion of Bush's actions unless we use it for everyone.


Thank you. Sorry I jumped the gun. I've just been experiencing that every time I raise this subject and I do think it's something we should discuss. I don't know why it's such a problem to bring in some article and ask some questions. I even looked at the conservative view!I'm not afraid of using hindsight across the board. I don't think it derails the discussion at all.

Presidential hindsight: what to do when someone doesn't fulfill their obligation. An alternative plan. let 's insititue a faster plan B.
But the State's hindsight was actually FORESIGHT: should have done what they were supposed to do.The existing plan should have been carried out.

I think you must remember this is not the Political Pavilion. I intentionally try not to post there because the convesation invariably gets too heated regarding any and all Presidents.

Dara
09-08-2005, 11:59 AM
I'm not afraid of using hindsight across the board. I don't think it derails the discussion at all.

Presidential hindsight: what to do when someone doesn't fulfill their obligation. An alternative plan. let 's insititue a faster plan B.
But the State's hindsight was actually FORESIGHT: should have done what they were supposed to do.The existing plan should have been carried out.

I think you must remember this is not the Political Pavilion. I intentionally try not to post there because the convesation invariably gets too heated regarding any and all Presidents.
But presidential foresight can include who he appoints to key positions and decisions regarding FEMA and Homeland Security.

If this discussion belongs in the Political Forum so do those about the mayor and governor. Like those discussions, I have focused the discussion on specific actions and decisions that affect Hurricane Katrina. So far, the mods have allowed those. Maybe they all should go there. It's up to the mods.

JBean
09-08-2005, 12:00 PM
How about the refugess themselves? Could they have done anything to help themselves?I think this is the start of the problem. The bottom rung of the ladder. Individual repsonsibilty is first and foremost.
They are the very first line of defense for themselves. Yes, I think this is the first level to look at and help to figure out how we can arm indigent people with hurricane supplies. Those that can afford it and didn't take heed,need to take personal responsibilty.

Dara
09-08-2005, 12:03 PM
I think this is the start of the problem. The bottom rung of the ladder. Individual repsonsibilty is first and foremost.
They are the very first line of defense for themselves. Yes, I think this is the first level to look at and help to figure out how we can arm indigent people with hurricane supplies. Those that can afford it and didn't take heed,need to take personal responsibilty.
Ok, and that is a good discussion to have. But this thread is about Bush. If everyone screwed up, if it's the fault of the people and the mayor and the governor and me, we were where we were on Wednesday and Thursday and Friday and Saturday. And that's what I hoped to discuss in a thread focused on Bush and his part in this tragedy. I guess I should be glad no one's brought Chappaquiddick in yet, but really, can't we just talk about Bush for a second? Consider his specific actions or lack of action?

JBean
09-08-2005, 12:04 PM
Ok, and that is a good discussion to have. But this thread is about Bush. If everyone screwed up, if it's the fault of the people and the mayor and the governor and me, we were where we were on Wednesday and Thursday and Friday and Saturday. And that's what I hoped to discuss in a thread focused on Bush and his part in this tragedy. I guess I should be glad no one's brought Chappaquiddick in yet, but really, can't we just talk about Bush for a second? Consider his specific actions or lack of action?Just responding to a post ma'am.

ETA: But I also think it's tough to separate out the parts. Especially when Bush's response hinged on the actions of others.

Larkit
09-08-2005, 12:05 PM
Probably not by the time they were being raped and shot at.

At which point if the president had the power to stop the violence, why didn't he?Dara, let me explain some things to you that you seem to be unaware of. Try to keep the timeline and flow of events clear while I then explain how federalization fits into the picture.

Bush declared a state of emergency in four states on Saturday. Govs. Riley, Bush, and Barbour also declared a state of emergency for their state. Gov. Blanco did not. Bush urged a mandatory evacuation of NO but Blanco wouldn't issue it.

Gov. Blanco had 6,500 National Guard troops and about 1,000 state police at her disposal. I don't know the numbers for Alabama, Mississippi and FLlorida but they were commensurate with their populations - about 7,00 in Alabama, for instance. The other three governors called forward their Nat'l Guard troops before the storm. For instance, Gov. Riley called his troops forward into position on Saturday, and Gov. Barbour called his forward into position early Monday. Gov. Blanco did not call her troops forward, except about 130 of them. They were not in position when the storm hit. FEMA was staged in a semi-circle around New Orleans - outside Baton Rouge - on Sunday. The Red Cross was in position on Sunday.

-----Dara, I'll have to finish this later - my husband needs to use the computer for something rather urgent......Bye.....let me just add that there's no way to intelligently discuss the federal level without discussing and understanding the local and state obligations.

Dara
09-08-2005, 12:05 PM
Just responding to a post ma'am.
I understand that. Just trying to keep the thread focused. It's so hard to follow threads that get off-topic.

JBean
09-08-2005, 12:06 PM
I understand that. Just trying to keep the thread focused. It's so hard to follow threads that get off-topic.see ETA in post

tybee204
09-08-2005, 12:07 PM
Actually Blanco did declare of State of Emergency in Louisana. I will go get the link.

http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=973

Date: 8/26/2005


Contact:Denise Bottcher or Roderick Hawkins at 225-342-9037


GOVERNOR BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY

BATON ROUGE, LA--Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco today issued Proclamation No. 48 KBB 2005, declaring a state of emergency for the state Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of the state of Louisiana The state of emergency extends from Friday, August 26, 2005, through Sunday, September 25, 2005, unless terminated sooner.

The full text of Proclamation No. 48 KBB 2005 is as follows:

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, R.S. 29:721, et seq., confers upon the governor of the state of Louisiana emergency powers to deal with emergencies and disasters, including those caused by fire, flood, earthquake or other natural or man-made causes, in order to ensure that preparations of this state will be adequate to deal with such emergencies or disasters and to preserve the lives and property of the citizens of the state of Louisiana;

WHEREAS, when the governor finds a disaster or emergency has occurred, or the threat thereof is imminent, R.S. 29:724(B)(1) empowers her to declare the state of disaster or emergency by executive order or proclamation, or both; and

WHEREAS, On August 26, 2005, Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat to the state of Louisiana, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of Louisiana;

NOW THEREFORE I, KATHLEEN BABINEAUX BLANCO,
Governor of the state of Louisiana, by virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution and laws of the state of Louisiana, do hereby order and direct as follows:

SECTION 1: Pursuant to the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, R.S. 29:721, et seq., a state of emergency is declared to exist in the state of Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of the state of Louisiana;

SECTION 2: The state of Louisiana's emergency response and recovery program is activated under the command of the director of the state office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to prepare for and provide emergency support services and/or to minimize the effects of the storm's damage.

SECTION 3: The state of emergency extends from Friday, August 26, 2005, through Sunday, September 25, 2005, unless terminated sooner.

Dara
09-08-2005, 12:10 PM
see ETA in post I saw it. And I agree, to a point. But even if everyone does everything wrong, the situation is what it is. I'm not asking how Bush should have responded to the hurricane if the mayor had done a better evacuation. I'm asking what is the best he could have done in THIS situation, as it was. How it could have been better is a different discussion. It was what it was, and I want to know what is the best response he could have given.

So you can talk about what if the evacuees had brought their own water and thugs weren't raping people. But reality is otherwise, so that's what concerns me.

Why were active-duty troops prepared to go in, which means Bush would have had to use the Insurrection Act if legally he couldn't?

JBean
09-08-2005, 12:12 PM
I saw it. And I agree, to a point. But even if everyone does everything wrong, the situation is what it is. I'm not asking how Bush should have responded to the hurricane if the mayor had done a better evacuation. I'm asking what is the best he could have done in THIS situation, as it was. How it could have been better is a different discussion. It was what it was, and I want to know what is the best response he could have given.

So you can talk about what if the evacuees had brought their own water and thugs weren't raping people. But reality is otherwise, so that's what concerns me.

Why were active-duty troops prepared to go in, which means Bush would have had to use the Insurrection Act if legally he couldn't?I see what you mean. My contributions will be more on topic.

Dara
09-08-2005, 12:19 PM
Dara, let me explain some things to you that you seem to be unaware of. OK

Bush declared a state of emergency in four states on Saturday. Govs. Riley, Bush, and Barbour also declared a state of emergency for their state. Gov. Blanco did not. Could you give a link for this? It's widely been reported (and see tybee's post) that Blanco did so. It was also reported by one Bush aid that she didn't, forcing a Washington Post retraction.

Also, according to the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050828-1.html), coming from Bush himself:

Yesterday, I signed a disaster declaration for the state of Louisiana, and this morning I signed a disaster declaration for the state of Mississippi. He said that on Sunday August 28th (if you believe the White House site to have an accurate date). So, yes, he declared a state of emergency for LA on Saturday, and MS on Sunday.

Dara
09-08-2005, 12:21 PM
I see what you mean. My contributions will be more on topic.
Thank you. I hate to be a thread Nazi, and I am usually the off-topic queen. I just think this is so important.

Pepper
09-08-2005, 12:37 PM
JBean, I thoroughly agree with your posts. I believe when this is all over, there will be a thorough investigation of what went wrong. All levels of government - local, state and federal - have known for decades that a storm of this magnatude would destroy New Orleans. Certainly everyone also knew that Katrina was a Cat 4-5 and was heading for New Orleans days before it touched land.

Apparently the Superdome had been designated as a shelter before the storm hit. So,

Why wasn't there food and water already in the dome before evacuees were brought there?

Why weren't porta-potties brought in - knowing that the storm would knock out power and sewer systems?

Why did Mayor Nagin not respond immediately to the call from the National Weather Service urging a mandatory evacuation?

Why weren't city busses and school busses deployed en masse into the lowest neighborhoods to move those people safely away?

Why can't Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco work in concert, instead of pointing fingers at each other?

Bush declared these states national disaster areas prior to the storm hitting, which should have expedited federal aid into these areas. Gov. Blanco was slow to react. IMHO she is a disaster, and does not have quick decision-making capability. Even now she wants to study the water and will not say that it is dangerous, even though it has been reported that dangerous levels of toxins and bacteria are present in the water. She is afraid to make decisions. She is a disgrace.

Yes, Bush probably could have done more and quicker, but the biggest blame falls at the feet of the local officials, starting with the aldermen.

Dara
09-08-2005, 12:47 PM
Yes, Bush probably could have done more and quicker, but the biggest blame falls at the feet of the local officials, starting with the aldermen.
Ohhhhhkay. I guess that's all anyone wants to talk about, and are doing so in many other threads. But there's this other guy. Texas accent. Flies in a big airplane called Air Force One. Can we just maybe talk about him for a second in a thread about him? I'd hate to see him get so little attention in his own thread.

The situation was what it was. Once it was apparent how bad it was, how about Bush? We're talking about everyone else. What about him?

Since you went into detail about everyone else, did you maybe want to expand your concession that Bush probably could have done more and quicker, since in the next federal emergency, you probably won't get Nagin and Blanco but will get him and FEMA and HS?

JBean
09-08-2005, 12:58 PM
Ohhhhhkay. I guess that's all anyone wants to talk about, and are doing so in many other threads. But there's this other guy. Texas accent. Flies in a big airplane called Air Force One. Can we just maybe talk about him for a second in a thread about him? I'd hate to see him get so little attention in his own thread.

The situation was what it was. Once it was apparent how bad it was, how about Bush? We're talking about everyone else. What about him?

Since you went into detail about everyone else, did you maybe want to expand your concession that Bush probably could have done more and quicker, since in the next federal emergency, you probably won't get Nagin and Blanco but will get him and FEMA and HS?Dara I still maintain it is only with the acquired hindsight we have learned that in the future we may need to implement changes. So we take what we have learned and apply in the future. The answer to the question is yes, Bush could have done more, now that we know what blunders were made beneath him. But it was the lack of foresight and planning by the city and state that is the crux of the matter. What Bush did was in accordance with protocol. Maybe protocol should be changed, but we only have that knowledge with hindsight.
So now there needs to be PLan "B": in the event the City/State miserably fails it citizens, the President should __________ after this much time__________. IT will take experts to determine what the ramifications of the Presdient acting any faster and what's in order.
So, IMO, discussion about what the President didn't do, based on what he didn;t know, but does know now is a limited topic.JMHO of course.

Dara
09-08-2005, 01:22 PM
Dara I still maintain it is only with the acquired hindsight we have learned that in the future we may need to implement changes.
I agree. We should study that. But we can take what we now know and discuss it. Only in hindsight will we know about the mayor and governor, too, but compare the discussions. Seriously. Go look at that. And you can say they had foresight, but so did Bush as far as who he chose and how he allotted funds and what he did to FEMA. As far as the rescue effort, we still don't know how much FEMA screwed up and how much Blanco did, but she's being blamed for being in charge of things we don't know were her call. They may have been, but there have been reports of grave errors from FEMA and FEMA is Brown's call. Perhaps the governor sent away all aid, but maybe Brown did. We don't know, but we're still talking about it.

So we take what we have learned and apply in the future. The answer to the question is yes, Bush could have done more, now that we know what blunders were made beneath him. But it was the lack of foresight and planning by the city and state that is the crux of the matter. So, talk about that in those threads.

But to a degree, "knowing what blunders were made beneath him" isn't really all that necessary to know those troops were needed and if had the law behind him, he should have acted.

And you say we "[know] what blunders were made beneath him." You know them? I still don't have a clear understanding of that.

If we know that people were dying in the convention center because the mayor ordered the evacuation too late and sent out buses too late OR we know that people are dying in the convention center for some reason we don't yet know, it doesn't change whether or not Bush could have sent troops. They don't get any less dead because we know who to blame.

What Bush did was in accordance with protocol. I'm not sure we do know he followed protocol. Unless protocol demands the president never invoke a power he supposedly has until, no matter what. Or if protocol demands he wait a particular amount of time.

If you can show me something to prove to me he was completley unable to federalize the troops because of protocol, or if he federalized them only on Saturday because of protocol, fine. But if legally he had the right to do it, why didn't he? You don't have to answer, but I will ask.

[quoMaybe protocol should be changed, but we only have that knowledge with hindsight.
So now there needs to be PLan "B": in the event the City/State miserably fails it citizens, the President should __________ after this much time__________. IT will take experts to determine what the ramifications of the Presdient acting any faster and what's in order.[/quote] And I've put articles in this thread that address just that issue. We know the ramifications of him not acting, don't we? We don't know the exact ramifications, but we do know there are more dead bodies and more raped women and children. When troops got there, when the response finally started on any meaningful level, lives were saved. But lives were lost in the days before. So, what ramifications justify that, if legally he could have acted?

So, IMO, discussion about what the President didn't do, based on what he didn;t know, but does know now is a limited topic.JMHO of course.
I understand that is how you feel. We disagree.

less0305
09-08-2005, 01:26 PM
Dara I still maintain it is only with the acquired hindsight we have learned that in the future we may need to implement changes. So we take what we have learned and apply in the future. The answer to the question is yes, Bush could have done more, now that we know what blunders were made beneath him. But it was the lack of foresight and planning by the city and state that is the crux of the matter. What Bush did was in accordance with protocol. Maybe protocol should be changed, but we only have that knowledge with hindsight.
So now there needs to be PLan "B": in the event the City/State miserably fails it citizens, the President should __________ after this much time__________. IT will take experts to determine what the ramifications of the Presdient acting any faster and what's in order.
So, IMO, discussion about what the President didn't do, based on what he didn;t know, but does know now is a limited topic.JMHO of course.

The critical movement to overstep the Governor's authority without him/her agreeing to it, in my opinion, will be fought tooth and nail in any and all situations - terrorist attacks, natural disasters, civil unrest.... At the time this begins, we may as well start getting ready for a new kind of government here in the good 'ole USA. HAD Bush overstepped the Governor's authority this time, then when and what would be the next time, and then the time after that? It would snowball and the President would be usurping the Governors powers left and right after that. And then why have state governments at all? Just like snow was not a natural disaster declared by the President in this entire USA history.....until President Clinton came along. And then all of a sudden snow is a natural disaster and federal money is given out for snow. President Clinton wanted to make airplane crashes a natural disaster. So, in my opinion, Governors will resist and resist strongly to the President taking their power away and becoming the person in charge. If people want to say Bush is playing politics by not taking over for the Governor, then maybe so. But in several congressional hearings over DRILLS - not actual events even - Drills, the loudest thing said was that the Governor should remain in charge at all times. It was said and said repeatedly and said that the Governor should resist at all lengths....that it had to remain with the state.

It all will boil down to a political game. And this hasn't even been broached yet....but if a Republican President had taken away the authority of a Democratic Governor without their agreeing - and a FEMALE Governor at that...The reactions we're seeing from the Democrats now would be nothing compared to the reactions we would see had he taken the reins from her immediately - without delay. All this is strictly how I think, by the way.

So, in essence, JBean, we're on the same wavelength, but I don't think plans for the President to be able to usurp the authority of the Governor will get very far.... Well, maybe they will, when a Democrat is elected and we have a democrat majority in the senate and house...then maybe they'll do it to a Republican Governor.

Dara
09-08-2005, 01:30 PM
So, in essence, JBean, we're on the same wavelength, but I don't think plans for the President to be able to usurp the authority of the Governor will get very far.... Well, maybe they will, when a Democrat is elected and we have a democrat majority in the senate and house...then maybe they'll do it to a Republican Governor.
Well, that's quite a partisan response.

If legally Bush had the right to "usurp the power" of the governor, and the governor is the reason so many people were waiting for aid and people were being shot at and raped, and the president has the authority and resources to stop it by sending in troops, why would he not? And what better time than when people were dying?

less0305
09-08-2005, 01:35 PM
Well, that's quite a partisan response.

If legally Bush had the right to "usurp the power" of the governor, and the governor is the reason so many people were waiting for aid and people were being shot at and raped, and the president has the authority and resources to stop it by sending in troops, why would he not? And what better time than when people were dying?

See above post. That's exactly what I explained.

JBean
09-08-2005, 01:37 PM
I understand that is how you feel. We disagree.agreed!
Probably I am frustrated by this conversation because I think my time is probably better spent finding out what is happening at my local levels to make sure I'm not overly dependent on FEMA or the President. I want to make sure I am LESS depoendent on the President not MORE dependent on him by giving him more power?
Because that is the reality of it,IMO. I want to make sure I am voting for the right state and local officals and getting involved. I have already found links to volunteer in my city in a disaster. I want to know! because that is what will make the difference IMO..not the President. I think this is also why the conversation keeps going off topic. but with that being said, I 100% respect what you are trying to accomplish and I don't mean to be a detour and for that I apologize.:blushing: If I have undermined your conversation,it was not my intent.

tybee204
09-08-2005, 01:38 PM
I think it will be interesting to learn if the Administration used relief as a powerplay. In other words was Federal Relief held back in an attempt to force the Govenor of Louisiana to surrender control of New Orleans?

Im still baffled why it took from Sunday 8/28 untill Thursday 9/01 for Washington to process approval for out of State National Guard to assist New Orleans.

Ntegrity
09-08-2005, 01:38 PM
See above post. That's exactly what I explained.
STAY ON TOPIC, LESS. If you can't say something bad about the president, keep your dang fingers off the keyboard!!! :blowkiss:

kgeaux
09-08-2005, 01:41 PM
I've been researching it for days, but am still not clear. If you can shed some light, please do. That is why I started this thread.

I understand (roughly) that the president can't federalize in a national disaster, but in a time of civil unrest, he can. I assume that's why it appears plans were made for him to federalize the troops (see the cite in my initial post).

I think you just hit the nail on the head, if you are looking for a reason the federal government delayed. It may help to understand that during the civil unrest in California, to the best I can determine, the California government ASKED for the federalization....so there are two big differences here: civil disorder vs. natural disaster, cooperation from state authorities vs. refusal to cooperate.



From the Newsweek article: For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

This one sentence is why I have interpreted the Newsweek article differently from you all along. Although the Newsweek reporter believes that Bush could have federalized the troops in an instant, his own advisors were not so sure that this situation fit the criteria.


From another link in your first post on this thread:
There is reason to believe that President Bush, running out of patience with Blanco by Saturday morning, used the only option that remained to him. It is being reported that Bush went around Blanco and utilized the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard and send in active military troops to take over the rescue and put down the lawlessness that had taken over New Orleans. The forces that Bush had poised to move into the city, swung into action. It was no accident that the major, organized rescues began when the sun came up Saturday morning. At 6:30 AM, when the sky over New Orleans was suddenly filled with military helicopters and military convoys poured into the streets, they were there because of President Bush, not Governor Blanco.

Word around town is that he "slapped her down." Not talking physically here, just that he forced the issue. Whether he did that by going around her or finally convinced her to agree, I don't know. I'm hearing forced. But that's just talking to friends, family and neighbors. No reporters here have put things like that into print, so I don't have a source. I'd love to see this confirmed or denied.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Blanco is the most responsible. Even if the mayor's plan was no good, she is the one who could force changes by withholding approval. She did no such thing. No governor before her has ever stood in the way of federal help, red cross help, and believe me, being on the gulf coast, we have experienced many, many hurricanes. She's the first to "f" it up so badly.

Dara
09-08-2005, 01:41 PM
See above post. That's exactly what I explained.
I see you saying it will be debated in the future and that if Bush had done it, Dems would be screaming (pardon the paraphrse; apologies if I haven't caught the essence). And that in drills they said the governor should remain in charge. But in those drills, did they have a governor who was doing as Blanco did and were the cirrcumstances the same? Can't Bush deviate from a drill when people are dying in order to save lives?

If his decision was politically motivated, and people died because of it when he could have saved them, it's akin to murder. imo.

I posted this above:

The Pentagon also authorized Adm. Timothy Keating, head of the Northern Command, to lay plans for possibly deploying active-duty troops — a move that can be ordered only by the president under the rarely used Insurrection Act. It seems like they were prepared to use them, and thus use the Insurrection Act, so what happened? Did things not get bad enough?

less0305
09-08-2005, 01:45 PM
STAY ON TOPIC, LESS. If you can't say something bad about the president, keep your dang fingers off the keyboard!!! :blowkiss:


LOL!!! Heck, I don't care. I can state my thoughts just as much as the next person. :croc:

tybee204
09-08-2005, 01:50 PM
Ntegrity

There is also a thread about the Conflict between the Govenor and Mayor and the possible mistakes they have made and continue to make.

People questioning the role of the President in this crisis is acceptable. Just as questioning the failures all others in a position of Leadership.

Im not interested in discussing Bush's politics before this , who loved him who hated him. My interest is in what failed in the system , who failed and taking responsibility and making changes. Not finger pointing or passing the buck.

Dara
09-08-2005, 01:54 PM
I think you just hit the nail on the head, if you are looking for a reason the federal government delayed. It may help to understand that during the civil unrest in California, to the best I can determine, the California government ASKED for the federalization....so there are two big differences here: civil disorder vs. natural disaster, cooperation from state authorities vs. refusal to cooperate.



From the Newsweek article: For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

This one sentence is why I have interpreted the Newsweek article differently from you all along. Although the Newsweek reporter believes that Bush could have federalized the troops in an instant, his own advisors were not so sure that this situation fit the criteria.
The situation fitting the criteria is if it is a matter in which the president can invoke the Insurrection Act, wouldn't it be? Such as if it fits the definition of whether or not he CAN invoke it. In which case, who's in charge doesn't matter. He can federalize.

The legal niceties paragraph :

Up to now, the Bush administration has not hesitated to sweep aside the opinions of lawyers on such matters as prisoners' rights. But after Katrina, a strange paralysis set in. For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. Beginning early in the week, Justice Department lawyers presented arguments for federalizing the Guard, but Defense Department lawyers fretted about untrained 19-year-olds trying to enforce local laws, according to a senior law-enforcement official who requested anonymity citing the delicate nature of the discussions. Ok, when they call it "legal niceties," I wonder if that was in matters regarding the nuts and bolts on the ground. Like should FEMA be making this call, or Blanco. It's not clear from the context if the author is simply explaining the climate into which the Insurrection Act debate was introduced. "Legal niceties" doesn't sound to me like the author is talking about the Insurrection there, but telling us what was going on in a broader sense but then narrowing down to the question of the Insurrection Act. Was there ever a question of using the Insurrection Act wrt prisoners' right? If so, it sounds like Bush did what he wanted. Either way, it sounds like Bush did what he wanted.

The part I bolded suggests it wasn't the question of if Bush could act, but should he? They were worried the Guard was going to go in and be unprepared. I wonder if that's part of the delay in Blanco getting the National Guard approval from Washington. The one she asked for Sunday, and got Thursday, if you believe that report.

Dara
09-08-2005, 01:56 PM
I think it will be interesting to learn if the Administration used relief as a powerplay. In other words was Federal Relief held back in an attempt to force the Govenor of Louisiana to surrender control of New Orleans?

Im still baffled why it took from Sunday 8/28 untill Thursday 9/01 for Washington to process approval for out of State National Guard to assist New Orleans. Tybee, I just made a possible connection I never saw before. Could this be part of the problem? Inkow that's in regard to federalizing the guard, but I wonder if somehow it's connected.

Beginning early in the week, Justice Department lawyers presented arguments for federalizing the Guard, but Defense Department lawyers fretted about untrained 19-year-olds trying to enforce local laws, according to a senior law-enforcement official who requested anonymity citing the delicate nature of the discussions. And thank you for your other post.

kgeaux
09-08-2005, 01:57 PM
snipping here Was he, as some posters suggested, thinking politically, unwilling to destroy his and /or Blanco's career?

I just want the truth.

I forgot to respond to this in my first post, sorry to make repeated responses.

Our nation is so polarized politically right now. I really do think that if he had wrested control from a Democratic governor, something that apparently has never been done before, all hell would have broken loose. I think it would have caused furthur polarization and furthur divided this nation.

I do think that any politician will take pains to not destroy his own career, if they have even half a brain. I at first thought he was not grabbing control because he didn't want Kathleen Blanco to look bad, but I don't think anymore that he was "protecting" her.

I think many of your links (good links bytheway) show that his administration took this wresting of control without her approval very seriously and tried for days to determine how they could legally do it, to the extent that he was willing to try to use the Insurrection Act.

less0305
09-08-2005, 01:59 PM
But in those drills, did they have a governor who was doing as Blanco did and were the cirrcumstances the same? Can't Bush deviate from a drill when people are dying in order to save lives?

Duh, why do you think they had a congressional hearing??!! The drill President took over for the incompetent Governor who was letting people die because the Governor didn't have the wherewithall to respond to a bio-terrorism strike and didn't get the vaccines to people or have the emergency response people vaccinated before going in to respond to the disaster and on and on and on. And in sworn testimony Adjutant Generals (report to the Governors) testified that even tho the person playing the part of the President stepped in - it should never happen. They said, "The Governor should always remain in control," and went on to say that even in times of destruction the people of a state are more familiar with their Governor and their state officials and they were better equipped to comfort. I've posted sworn testimony quotes several times. I'm not doing it again. So no, it wasn't a hurricane. But the scenario resulted in mass death.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:03 PM
I forgot to respond to this in my first post, sorry to make repeated responses.

Our nation is so polarized politically right now. I really do think that if he had wrested control from a Democratic governor, something that apparently has never been done before, all hell would have broken loose. I think it would have caused furthur polarization and furthur divided this nation.

I do think that any politician will take pains to not destroy his own career, if they have even half a brain. I at first thought he was not grabbing control because he didn't want Kathleen Blanco to look bad, but I don't think anymore that he was "protecting" her.

I think many of your links (good links bytheway) show that his administration took this wresting of control without her approval very seriously and tried for days to determine how they could legally do it, to the extent that he was willing to try to use the Insurrection Act.
Good points. I am horrified that politics could be a factor, even as I realize it may have been. But can we accept that, if true, without outrage?

Seriously. Think about the people huddling and dying in the convention center, the adults and children who were raped, and doctors and nurses ducking bullets trying to get babies onto a helicopter while politicians were worrying about political fallout. And the president possibly could have had troops on the ground at that very moment.

I may be accused of hyperbole, but the sad fact is, that is exactly what was going on except I can't come near capturing the horror.

I don't know if they wrangled for days trying to use the Act legally. I don't know if they dragged their feet, hoping someone else would emerge as leader and save Bush the fallout. I don't know if they knew all along they could use it and Bush made poor decisions, on his own or because of bad info. I don't know if he knew he could have used it all along and didn't want to worsen his ratings.

But I sure want to know, and the more I study this, the better an idea I can have of which version is true.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:07 PM
Duh, why do you think they had a congressional hearing??!! The drill President took over for the incompetent Governor who was letting people die because the Governor didn't have the wherewithall to respond to a bio-terrorism strike and didn't get the vaccines to people or have the emergency response people vaccinated before going in to respond to the disaster and on and on and on. And in sworn testimony Adjutant Generals (report to the Governors) testified that even tho the person playing the part of the President stepped in - it should never happen. They said, "The Governor should always remain in control," and went on to say that even in times of destruction the people of a state are more familiar with their Governor and their state officials and they were better equipped to comfort. I've posted sworn testimony quotes several times. I'm not doing it again. So no, it wasn't a hurricane. But the scenario resulted in mass death.
Duh? Awwww, someone needs a huuuuug.

And it ain't me. LOL.

Annnnyway. Did that congressional hearing result in the revokation of the Insurrection Act?

If not, Bush, it appears, still could have federalize the troops, restored order and saved lives.

kgeaux
09-08-2005, 02:09 PM
Ohhhhhkay. I guess that's all anyone wants to talk about, and are doing so in many other threads. But there's this other guy. Texas accent. Flies in a big airplane called Air Force One. Can we just maybe talk about him for a second in a thread about him? I'd hate to see him get so little attention in his own thread.

The situation was what it was. Once it was apparent how bad it was, how about Bush? We're talking about everyone else. What about him?

Since you went into detail about everyone else, did you maybe want to expand your concession that Bush probably could have done more and quicker, since in the next federal emergency, you probably won't get Nagin and Blanco but will get him and FEMA and HS?


I'm not understanding how anyone can decide what Bush should have done without knowing what other levels of government should have done. He is not, IMO, responsible for their screwups. I'm not saying he is not to be found fault with, just that without discussing the totality, how can we ever parse it?

Pepper
09-08-2005, 02:10 PM
I think it is way too easy to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong in this country. But first everyone needs to understand how our government works.

U.S. Constitution, Article IV:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
In a broad definition a republic is a state or country in which sovereignty is invested in the people. Most commonly such principle beyond the control of the state's citizens is a hereditary principle, and in this sense a republic is the opposite of a monarchy. Thus the term republicanism is often used to describe any movement that is opposed to monarchies.
Republic can also refer to a political system that has a system of law (as in a constitution or bill of rights) that protects individual liberty from the forces of democracy with elected representatives governing according to such law. Republicanism refers to both the advocacy for this form of government and the ideology of this movement.

Please note that the definition of republic or repubicanism is spelled with a small "r" and not to be confused with the Republican Party.

Because our system of government is designed to protect state's rights, there are limitations as to what the federal government can do without the states giving their consent. And in most instances each state has a similar provisions involving counties and cities.

My point is that the federal solution is not as simple as it may appear. Until an investigation takes place (hopefully by an independent non-political body) we will not know the full story. I think we are all frustrated that the entire situation wasn't handled more competently.

As JBean says, it should make us all more aware of our local elected officials, and just how prepared our own communitities need to be in the event of a disaster.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:16 PM
I'm not understanding how anyone can decide what Bush should have done without knowing what other levels of government should have done. He is not, IMO, responsible for their screwups. I'm not saying he is not to be found fault with, just that without discussing the totality, how can we ever parse it?
I think there are factors that matter, and I'm discussing them, but I don't thinking things like that the "refugees" should have helped themselves and every decision that led up to the people being in the shelters have relevance in the issue of what powers Bush had.

To get the clearest picture, we need to know more. We need to know more about why the mayor and governor did what they did, too. But we're still discussing that, to the best of our ability. If you think it's too early to be having this discussion, but feel more comfortable chiming in as more information emerges, this thread will probably be still be here in a week or so. We can bump it and talk then. I'm going to keep hunting up info and adding it.

less0305
09-08-2005, 02:19 PM
Duh? Awwww, someone needs a huuuuug.

And it ain't me. LOL.

Annnnyway. Did that congressional hearing result in the revokation of the Insurrection Act?

If not, Bush, it appears, still could have federalize the troops, restored order and saved lives.


Well, Dara, I guess there is absolutely nothing left to say except I hope I never live in the Country you propose. I hope I'm dead and gone before that precedence is set and then repeated over and over and over again. People ask for things...demand things....and then find out it might not have been such a good thing to ask for. That old saying, "Careful what you wish for." Much of this Monday morning quarterbacking - and I won't say all because we are talking about a catastrophic natural disaster - wouldn't be what it is if the Governor had something along the lines of, "Mr. President, got a situation going on down here I need some help with," versus, "Mr. President, I want all the federal money you can round up, load up, beg for, but keep your azzz in Washington D.C. and your cotton-picking mitts off my state. I'm quite capable of handling it myself."

kgeaux
09-08-2005, 02:21 PM
I see you saying it will be debated in the future and that if Bush had done it, Dems would be screaming (pardon the paraphrse; apologies if I haven't caught the essence). And that in drills they said the governor should remain in charge. But in those drills, did they have a governor who was doing as Blanco did and were the cirrcumstances the same? Can't Bush deviate from a drill when people are dying in order to save lives?

If his decision was politically motivated, and people died because of it when he could have saved them, it's akin to murder. imo.

I posted this above:

It seems like they were prepared to use them, and thus use the Insurrection Act, so what happened? Did things not get bad enough?

Oh, golly, I can't keep my fingers off the keyboard. It looks like the Insurrection Act gives a president authority to federalize troops. I think whether or not THIS situation fit the criteria to use the Insurrection Act is what took much discussion. His own advisors did not agree that he could usurp her position.

In bi-partisanship, I will tell you that if the shoe were on a different foot, a Democratic president wresting control from a Republican governor, I believe the discussions at the federal level would have been the same.


Editing to add furthur response (my fingers just wanna move!)
The situation fitting the criteria is if it is a matter in which the president can invoke the Insurrection Act, wouldn't it be? Such as if it fits the definition of whether or not he CAN invoke it. In which case, who's in charge doesn't matter. He can federalize.


Agreed, if it fits the criteria to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president can federalize.

less0305
09-08-2005, 02:23 PM
In bi-partisanship, I will tell you that if the shoe were on a different foot, a Democratic president wresting control from a Republican governor, I believe the discussions at the federal level would have been the same.

Oh, absolutely, Kgeaux. It's a decision of monumental proportions!!!!

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:24 PM
I think it is way too easy to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong in this country. But first everyone needs to understand how our government works.



Please note that the definition of republic or repubicanism is spelled with a small "r" and not to be confused with the Republican Party.

Because our system of government is designed to protect state's rights, there are limitations as to what the federal government can do without the states giving their consent. And in most instances each state has a similar provisions involving counties and cities.

My point is that the federal solution is not as simple as it may appear. Until an investigation takes place (hopefully by an independent non-political body) we will not know the full story. I think we are all frustrated that the entire situation wasn't handled more competently.

As JBean says, it should make us all more aware of our local elected officials, and just how prepared our own communitities need to be in the event of a disaster.
Thank you for the information. I agree that we are all frustrated and that we perhaps won't know until an investigation takes place. That applies to a lot of things we're discussing actively. As we learn more, as we become more informed our opinions change. I'm trying to figure this out, and will continue to.

I am glad there are checks and balances. But I feel with what I know now Bush waited too long to invoke his right to federalize the troops. Yes, the Insurrection Act is not used often, and for good reason. But this, we keep hearing, is an unprecendented situation. The governor, if you believe the worst, was impeding aid. Bush supposedly gave her 24 hours to think about whether she wanted federal aid. He deferred to the person making the problem worse, if you will, while people died. Did he have other options. Could he have gotten on TV and said, It's the governor's call and in 24 hours she'll decide if she wants troops. I'm not saying he should have done that; I'm asking if he could. What were his options?

But we could also talk about other ways he could have done more. Like choosing people with a smidge of experience and qualification. I'm very concerned with the people who run FEMA and Homeland Security. I started this thread to talk about all of it.

JBean
09-08-2005, 02:28 PM
-----Dara, I'll have to finish this later - my husband needs to use the computer for something rather urgent......Bye.....let me just add that there's no way to intelligently discuss the federal level without discussing and understanding the local and state obligations.Larkit, I have just realized that i missed many of your posts. You seem very knowledgable and I am anxious to hear what you have to say.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 02:29 PM
I'm not understanding how anyone can decide what Bush should have done without knowing what other levels of government should have done. He is not, IMO, responsible for their screwups. I'm not saying he is not to be found fault with, just that without discussing the totality, how can we ever parse it?


Here's how kgeaux


If Bush did it or didn't do it = Bad

If state, local did it or didn't do it = we just don't have enough information to judge right now


The Wall Street Journal


The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid.

In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Gov. Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in constant contact with Mayor Nagin and FEMA. It is likely that thousands of people died because of the failure of Gov. Blanco to implement the state plan, which mentions the possible need to evacuate up to one million people.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:32 PM
Well, Dara, I guess there is absolutely nothing left to say except I hope I never live in the Country you propose. I hope I'm dead and gone before that precedence is set and then repeated over and over and over again. I haven't proposed any "Country." Our country has the Insurrection Act and it has not been established that Bush had or had no recourse to use it. Apparently, if you go by posts, it's too early to say definitively that he could have used it, but not too early to say he definitively could have. It's been suggested to me I don't have enough information and should wait until after the investigations. If I should, so should you, according to that line of thinking.

Am I seeing a double standard?

People ask for things...demand things....and then find out it might not have been such a good thing to ask for. That old saying, "Careful what you wish for." I'm sure the people who died in the convention center wishing the president who promised he would keep them safe had kept his promise would have regretted asking for that if they had lived.

JBean
09-08-2005, 02:32 PM
Here's how kgeaux


If Bush did it or didn't do it = Bad

If state, local did it or didn't do it = we just don't have enough information to judge right now


The Wall Street Journal


The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid.

In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Gov. Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in constant contact with Mayor Nagin and FEMA. It is likely that thousands of people died because of the failure of Gov. Blanco to implement the state plan, which mentions the possible need to evacuate up to one million people.That says it all ,IMO.

tybee204
09-08-2005, 02:34 PM
This is really interesting. It basically shows exactly what the President can and is obligated to do.


This is from the ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT

http://www.ohioema.org/robertt.htm



ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT

P.L. 93-288, as amended

TITLE I - FINDINGS, DECLARATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS

Sec. 101. The Congress hereby finds and declares that

(1) because disasters often cause loss of life, human suffering, loss of income, and property loss and damage; and
(2) because disasters often disrupt the normal functioning of governments and communities, and adversely affect individuals and families with great severity; special measures, designed to assist the efforts of the affected States in expediting the rendering of aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas, are necessary.

(b) It is the intent of Congress, by this Act, to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from such disasters by -

(1) revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief programs;
(2) encouraging the development of comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance plans, programs, capabilities, and organizations by the States and by local government;
(3) achieving greater coordination and responsiveness of disaster preparedness and relief programs;
(4) encouraging individuals, States, and local governments to protect themselves by obtaining insurance coverage to supplement or replace governmental assistance;
(5) encouraging hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses from disasters, including development of land use and construction regulations; and
(6) providing Federal assistance programs for both public and private losses sustained in disasters.

DEFINITIONS

Sec. 102. As used in this Act

(1) "Emergency" means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States."
(2) "Major disaster" means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, windriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby."
(3) "United States" means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(4) "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(5) "Governor" means the chief executive of any State.
(6) "Local government" means (A) any county, city, village, town, district, or other political subdivision of any State, any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization, and (B) includes any rural community or unincorporated town or village or any other public entity for which an application for assistance is made by a State of political subdivision thereof.
(7) "Federal agency" means any department, independent establishment, Government corporation, or other agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government, including the United States Postal Service, but shall not include the American National Red Cross.
(8) "Public facility" means the following facilities owned by a State or local government:
(A) Any flood control, navigation, irrigation, reclamation, public power, sewage treatment and collection, water supply and distribution, watershed development, or airport facility.
(B) Any non-Federal-aid street, road, or highway.
(C) Any other public building, structure, or system, including those used for educational, recreational, or cultural purposes.
(D) Any park.
(9) "Private nonprofit facility" means private nonprofit educational, utility, emergency, medical, rehabilitation, and temporary or permanent custodial care facilities (including those for the aged and disabled), other private nonprofit facilities which provide essential services of a governmental nature to the general public, and facilities on Indian reservations as defined by the President.

TITLE II - DISASTER PREPAREDNESS ASSISTANCE
FEDERAL AND STATE DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS

Sec. 201 (a) The President is authorized to establish a program of disaster preparedness that utilizes services of all appropriate agencies and includes -

(1) preparation of disaster preparedness plans for mitigation, warning, emergency operations, rehabilitation, and recovery;
(2) training and exercises;
(3) postdisaster critiques and evaluations;
(4) annual review of programs;
(5) coordination of Federal, State, and local preparedness programs;
(6) application of science and technology;
(7) research.

(b) The President shall provide technical assistance to the States in developing comprehensive plans and practicable programs for preparation against disasters, including hazard reduction, avoidance, and mitigation; for assistance to individuals, businesses, and State and local governments following such disasters; and for recovery of damaged or destroyed public and private facilities.

(c) Upon application by a State, the President is authorized to make grants not to exceed in the aggregate to such State $250,000, for the development of plans, programs, and capabilities for disaster preparedness and prevention. Such grants shall be applied for within one year from the date of enactment of this Act. Any State desiring financial assistance under this section shall designate or create an agency to plan and administer such a disaster preparedness program, and shall, through such agency, submit a State plan to the President, which shall-

(1) set forth a comprehensive and detailed State program for preparation against and assistance following, emergencies and major disasters, including provisions for assistance to individuals, businesses, and local government; and
(2) include provisions for appointment and training of appropriate staffs, formulation of necessary regulations and procedures and conduct of required exercises.

(d) The President is authorized to make grants not to exceed 50 percentum of the cost of improving, maintaining and updating State disaster assistance plans including evaluations of natural hazards and development of the programs and actions required to mitigate such hazards, except that no such grant shall exceed $50,000 per annum to any State.

DISASTER WARNINGS

Sec. 202. (a) The President shall insure that all appropriate Federal agencies are prepared to issue warnings of disasters to State and local officials.

(b) The President shall direct appropriate Federal agencies to provide technical assistance to State and local governments to insure that timely and effective disaster warning is provided.

(c) The President is authorized to utilize or to make available to Federal, State, and local agencies the facilities of the civil defense communications system established and maintained pursuant to section 201(c) of the Federal Civic Defense Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2281(c)), or any other Federal communications system for the purpose of providing warning to governmental authorities and the civilian population in areas endangered by disasters.

(d) The President is authorized to enter into agreements with the officers or agents of any private or commercial communications systems who volunteer the use of their systems on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis for the purpose of providing warning to governmental authorities and the civilian population endangered by disasters.

TITLE III - MAJOR DISASTER AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

WAIVER OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS

Sec. 301. Any Federal agency charged with the administration of a Federal assistance program may, if so requested by the applicant State or local authorities, modify or waive, for a major disaster, such administrative conditions for assistance as would otherwise prevent the giving of assistance under such programs if the inability to meet such conditions is a result of a major disaster.

COORDINATING OFFICERS

Sec. 302. (a) Immediately upon his declaration of a major disaster or emergency, the President shall appoint a Federal coordinating officer to operate in the affected area.

(b) In order to effectuate the purposes of this Act, the Federal coordinating officer, within the affected area, shall

(1) make an initial appraisal of the types of relief most urgently needed;
(2) establish such field offices as he deems necessary and as are authorized by the President;
(3) coordinate the administration of relief, including activities of the State and local government, the American National Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Mennonite Disaster Service, and other relief or disaster assistance organizations, which agree to operate under his advice or direction, except that nothing contained in this Act shall limit or in any way affect the responsibilities of the American National Red Cross under the Act of January 5, 1905, as amended (33 Stat. 599); and
(4) take such other action, consistent with authority delegated to him by the President, and consistent with the provisions of this Act, as he may deem necessary to assist local citizens and public officials in promptly obtaining assistance to which they are entitled.

(c) When the President determines assistance under this Act is necessary, he shall request that the Governor of the affected State designate a State coordinating officer for the purposes of coordinating State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government.








FOOD COMMODITIES

Sec. 413. (a) The President is authorized and directed to assure that adequate stocks of food will be ready and conveniently available for emergency mass feeding or distribution in any area of the United States which suffers a major disaster or emergency.

(b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall utilize funds appropriated under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to purchase food commodities necessary to provide adequate supplies for use in any area of the United States in the event of a major disaster or emergency in such area.

Ntegrity
09-08-2005, 02:37 PM
If Bush did it or didn't do it = Bad

If state, local did it or didn't do it = we just don't have enough information to judge right now
You've got that 100% correct.


The Wall Street Journal

The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid.

In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Gov. Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in constant contact with Mayor Nagin and FEMA. It is likely that thousands of people died because of the failure of Gov. Blanco to implement the state plan, which mentions the possible need to evacuate up to one million people.

I think I said this yesterday, but I need to say it just once more. You come up with some really fabulous references. Thanks, Tex.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:39 PM
Here's how kgeaux

The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid.

In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Gov. Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in constant contact with Mayor Nagin and FEMA. It is likely that thousands of people died because of the failure of Gov. Blanco to implement the state plan, which mentions the possible need to evacuate up to one million people.
TexMex, could we get a link to that? Or at least an author so I can find it myself? I'm sure I read it when you first posted it, but I'd like to go to the source.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 02:40 PM
I'm sure the people who died in the convention center wishing the president who promised he would keep them safe had kept his promise would have regretted asking for that if they had lived.

Bush tried to FEDERERALIZE the evacuation of NO

The National Guard reports to the governor. What can FEMA do if the governor is playing politics?

Washington Post 9/3

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

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:41 PM
This is really interesting. It basically shows exactly what the President can and is obligated to do.


This is from the ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT
Thanks, tybee. Interesting reading.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:44 PM
Bush tried to FEDERERALIZE the evacuation of NO

BLANCO refused for selfish political reasons:


And if that is true, and the president could invoke the Insurrection Act, but did not, he is not blameless.

IMO. You may not agree.

BTW, your link doesn't work.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 02:44 PM
TexMex, could we get a link to that? Or at least an author so I can find it myself? I'm sure I read it when you first posted it, but I'd like to go to the source.

WSJ: Blame Amid The Tragedy

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB112596602138332256-IVjf4NilaJ4nZupaoGGa6uBm4,00.html

A year ago, as Hurricane Ivan approached, New Orleans ordered an evacuation but did not use city or school buses to help people evacuate. As a result many of the poorest citizens were unable to evacuate. Fortunately, the hurricane changed course and did not hit New Orleans, but both Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin acknowledged the need for a better evacuation plan. Again, they did not take corrective actions. In 1998, during a threat by Hurricane George, 14,000 people were sent to the Superdome and theft and vandalism were rampant due to inadequate security. Again, these problems were not corrected.

Ntegrity
09-08-2005, 02:44 PM
tybee, that's some great information you posted too. My question is the following. When it talks about the president's authorization to do those things, hasn't he fulfilled that responsibility by freeing up assets and agencies when he declared a state of emergency well ahead of time for the affected states? Or shall I assume that he, Laura, and the twins were supposed to dash down to Nawlins and stock the evacuation shelters with bottled water and MREs?

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:46 PM
Here's how kgeaux
The Wall Street Journal


The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor. President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Gov. Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for specific aid.

In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Gov. Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in constant contact with Mayor Nagin and FEMA. It is likely that thousands of people died because of the failure of Gov. Blanco to implement the state plan, which mentions the possible need to evacuate up to one million people.
Never mind the link. I found it. It's that opinion piece by Bob Williams. I looked him up. Interesting ties to convservatives. I believe they give a lot of money to his foundation. It's in another thread.

tybee204
09-08-2005, 02:47 PM
tybee, that's some great information you posted too. My question is the following. When it talks about the president's authorization to do those things, hasn't he fulfilled that responsibility by freeing up assets and agencies when he declared a state of emergency well ahead of time for the affected states? Or shall I assume that he, Laura, and the twins were supposed to dash down to Nawlins and stock the evacuation shelters with bottled water and MREs?


Sec. 302. (a) Immediately upon his declaration of a major disaster or emergency, the President shall appoint a Federal coordinating officer to operate in the affected area.

(b) In order to effectuate the purposes of this Act, the Federal coordinating officer, within the affected area, shall

(1) make an initial appraisal of the types of relief most urgently needed;
(2) establish such field offices as he deems necessary and as are authorized by the President;
(3) coordinate the administration of relief, including activities of the State and local government, the American National Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Mennonite Disaster Service, and other relief or disaster assistance organizations, which agree to operate under his advice or direction, except that nothing contained in this Act shall limit or in any way affect the responsibilities of the American National Red Cross under the Act of January 5, 1905, as amended (33 Stat. 599); and
(4) take such other action, consistent with authority delegated to him by the President, and consistent with the provisions of this Act, as he may deem necessary to assist local citizens and public officials in promptly obtaining assistance to which they are entitled.

(c) When the President determines assistance under this Act is necessary, he shall request that the Governor of the affected State designate a State coordinating officer for the purposes of coordinating State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:48 PM
Immediately upon his declaration of a major disaster or emergency, the President shall appoint a Federal coordinating officer to operate in the affected area. Would that be Chertoff? I think since he's over FEMA, too, he should be. I'll have to look it up.

Ntegrity
09-08-2005, 02:51 PM
Now all I need is a lawyer of constitutionalist to decipher the code. :doh:

tybee204
09-08-2005, 02:52 PM
Truthfully Ntegrity I dont understand your sarcasm.

Olivia77
09-08-2005, 02:53 PM
Sec. 302. (a) Immediately upon his declaration of a major disaster or emergency, the President shall appoint a Federal coordinating officer to operate in the affected area.

(b) In order to effectuate the purposes of this Act, the Federal coordinating officer, within the affected area, shall

(1) make an initial appraisal of the types of relief most urgently needed;
(2) establish such field offices as he deems necessary and as are authorized by the President;
(3) coordinate the administration of relief, including activities of the State and local government, the American National Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Mennonite Disaster Service, and other relief or disaster assistance organizations, which agree to operate under his advice or direction, except that nothing contained in this Act shall limit or in any way affect the responsibilities of the American National Red Cross under the Act of January 5, 1905, as amended (33 Stat. 599); and
(4) take such other action, consistent with authority delegated to him by the President, and consistent with the provisions of this Act, as he may deem necessary to assist local citizens and public officials in promptly obtaining assistance to which they are entitled.

(c) When the President determines assistance under this Act is necessary, he shall request that the Governor of the affected State designate a State coordinating officer for the purposes of coordinating State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government.

Everyone who thinks the President is free and clear of any responsibility needs to read #3, and then read it again.

Thanks for posting tybee.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 02:54 PM
And if that is true, and the president could invoke the Insurrection Act, but did not, he is not blameless.

IMO. You may not agree.



http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=108297

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents, by federal law, the president of the United States from sending federal troops into any state without the direct request of the elected governor of that state. A frustrated President Bush could only stand by and watch as the horror unfolded until he received the request for help. Despite the finger-pointing at President Bush, there was little that he could do until he was formally asked for assistance.

As the death toll rose and the animalistic behavior of some of those who chose to remain within the city became public knowledge, it was obvious that authorities needed to regain control. As the scenes from New Orleans, now a national disgrace, were being beamed around the world, a shameless Governor Blanco only cared about her own political image.



There is reason to believe that President Bush, running out of patience with Blanco by Saturday morning, used the only option that remained to him. It is being reported that Bush went around Blanco and utilized the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard and send in active military troops to take over the rescue and put down the lawlessness that had taken over New Orleans. The forces that Bush had poised to move into the city, swung into action. It was no accident that the major, organized rescues began when the sun came up on Saturday morning. At 6:30 AM, when the sky over New Orleans was suddenly filled with military helicopters and military convoys poured into the streets, they were there because of President Bush, not Governor Blanco.

Ntegrity
09-08-2005, 02:55 PM
Truthfully Ntegrity I dont understand your sarcasm.
What sarcasm? I'm asking what the he!! all that means. It sounds like it's either DHS or FEMA that would handle those things under orders from the president ... because I seriously doubt if the president is personally expected to attend to each and every item on that list. If you want to think that's a sarcastic remark, that's your prerogative.

Dara
09-08-2005, 02:58 PM
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=108297

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents, by federal law, the president of the United States from sending federal troops into any state without the direct request of the elected governor of that state. A frustrated President Bush could only stand by and watch as the horror unfolded until he received the request for help. Despite the finger-pointing at President Bush, there was little that he could do until he was formally asked for assistance.

As the death toll rose and the animalistic behavior of some of those who chose to remain within the city became public knowledge, it was obvious that authorities needed to regain control. As the scenes from New Orleans, now a national disgrace, were being beamed around the world, a shameless Governor Blanco only cared about her own political image.



There is reason to believe that President Bush, running out of patience with Blanco by Saturday morning, used the only option that remained to him. It is being reported that Bush went around Blanco and utilized the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard and send in active military troops to take over the rescue and put down the lawlessness that had taken over New Orleans. The forces that Bush had poised to move into the city, swung into action. It was no accident that the major, organized rescues began when the sun came up on Saturday morning. At 6:30 AM, when the sky over New Orleans was suddenly filled with military helicopters and military convoys poured into the streets, they were there because of President Bush, not Governor Blanco. So, he was able to use the Insurrection Act. Why did he wait so long? I see that he did wait and he got all frustrated and all, but hell, I was frustrated Wednesday. How on earth could he be so patient? If I knew I could save dying people, I'd run out of patience and do it long before then.

BTW, I used that same piece in the first post in this thread. And I realize the author is speculating.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 02:58 PM
Never mind the link. I found it. It's that opinion piece by Bob Williams. I looked him up. Interesting ties to convservatives. I believe they give a lot of money to his foundation. It's in another thread.


Mr. Williams is president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a free market public policy research organization in Olympia, Wash.

Link to any money Bush gave to him or his orgnization?
TIA

TexMex
09-08-2005, 03:01 PM
So, he was able to use the Insurrection Act. Why did he wait so long? I see that he did wait and he got all frustrated and all, but hell, I was frustrated Wednesday. How on earth could he be so patient? If I knew I could save dying people, I'd run out of patience and do it long before then.




The elected Gov of the State asked him for more time.

Dara
09-08-2005, 03:03 PM
The elected Gov of the State asked him for more time.
We can keep going around on this. People were dying and she wasn't getting the job done. She asked. He didn't have to give her the time. That is, imo, an endorsement of the job she was doing, and if it was so bad, why didn't he invoke the IA then?

Dara
09-08-2005, 03:05 PM
Mr. Williams is president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a free market public policy research organization in Olympia, Wash.

Link to any money Bush gave to him or his orgnization?
TIA
When I claim Bush gave him money, you can ask me for a link. I linked to support for the other claim.

I'll qualify and say it's according to a watchdog society, so perhaps theyre wrong, but from my research last night, I believe them.

Pepper
09-08-2005, 03:05 PM
What sarcasm? I'm asking what the he!! all that means. It sounds like it's either DHS or FEMA that would handle those things under orders from the president ... because I seriously doubt if the president is personally expected to attend to each and every item on that list. If you want to think that's a sarcastic remark, that's your prerogative.

Everyone who thinks the President is free and clear of any responsibility needs to read #3, and then read it again.
Thanks for posting tybee.

I think what we are seeing is a myriad of acts, declarations, proclamations and even laws that may contradict each other, and may not all have been tested to their Constitutionality. That's not so unusual in a government as complex as ours.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 03:07 PM
We can keep going around on this. People were dying and she wasn't getting the job done. She asked. He didn't have to give her the time. That is, imo, an endorsement of the job she was doing, and if it was so bad, why didn't he invoke the IA then?

The elected Gov of the State of LA asked him for more time.
Wouldn't you believe the Gov if she told you she had a plan and needed another 24hrs? He believed her. He obviously didn't think she would be playing politics with lives of citizens of her own state on the line.
Blanco blew it.

Pepper
09-08-2005, 03:12 PM
The elected Gov of the State of LA asked him for more time.
Wouldn't you believe the Gov if she told you she had a plan and needed another 24hrs? He believed her. He obviously didn't think she would be playing politics with lives of citizens of her own state on the line.
Blanco blew it.AMEN! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 03:13 PM
tybee, that's some great information you posted too. My question is the following. When it talks about the president's authorization to do those things, hasn't he fulfilled that responsibility by freeing up assets and agencies when he declared a state of emergency well ahead of time for the affected states?

I agree. Upon reading the linked info in it's entirety, much has to do with the procedures after the Governor does his/her official requests, and how the Feds will then support the State's efforts. To me, it all comes back to, again, the appropriate requests by the Governor and the State. Until we know what happened/when/by whom at the lower levels, we can't pinpoint what the higher levels (i.e., Feds) did wrong, where the delays were, etc. We'll get there, we're just not there yet. JMHO

Dara
09-08-2005, 03:14 PM
The elected Gov of the State of LA asked him for more time.
Wouldn't you believe the Gov if she told you she had a plan and needed another 24hrs? He believed her. He obviously didn't think she would be playing politics with lives of citizens of her own state on the line.
Blanco blew it.
She may very well have. But if he couldn't tell, with FEMA there and Homeland Security there and people already dead and shooting in the streets, that leaving her in charge was a mistake, then he is incompetent. And he holds blame for this as well.

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 03:16 PM
I think what we are seeing is a myriad of acts, declarations, proclamations and even laws that may contradict each other, and may not all have been tested to their Constitutionality. That's not so unusual in a government as complex as ours.

Exactly. That's why there are lawyers reviewing all this (in the past, and now moving forward.)

TexMex
09-08-2005, 03:23 PM
She may very well have. But if he couldn't tell, with FEMA there and Homeland Security there and people already dead and shooting in the streets, that leaving her in charge was a mistake, then he is incompetent. And he holds blame for this as well.

Your hatred of Bush is blinding you to who is to 'blame'

The National Guard is under the command of the Governor of each state, not the President. The President can Federalize control over a state’s guard on his own order, but doing so without a Governor’s consent to deal with an in state natural disaster would be a supreme insult to the Governor and the state. In addition, using Federal troops for local police actions is against the law and has been since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Who did what in response to Katrina. President Bush declared the entire Gulf Coast, including New Orleans and Louisiana, a Federal disaster area days before the hurricane hit, to enable Federal aid to get there sooner.

The disaster that struck New Orleans did not become apparent until the morning of Tuesday, August 29, as the levees broke after the brunt of the storm had passed. But that very day, the Army Corps of Engineers was already working on levee repair. And the Coast Guard was already in the air with helicopters rescuing people from rooftops, ultimately employing 300 choppers. These are both Federal agencies under Bush’s command.

Now what about Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin? President Bush had to get on the phone two days before the hurricane to plead with the Governor to order a mandatory evacuation. In response, she dithered and delayed. Mayor Nagin also had full authority, and responsibility, to order an evacuation. He dithered and delayed as well.

The city’s own written evacuation plan requires the city to provide transportation for the evacuation of those without access to vehicles or with disabilities. But Nagin did absolutely nothing to carry out this responsibility.

Instead, hundreds of city metro and school buses were ruined in the flood, as Nagin left them in low lying areas. Nagin asked residents who couldn’t get out to go to the Superdome. It was his responsibility to then provide water, food, portable bathrooms, and security for them. But, again, Nagin did nothing to carry out this responsibility in service to the poor blacks who primarily exercised this option.

We now know that even though the Red Cross was ready to bring food and water to the Superdome the day after the storm, Governor Blanco actually barred them from doing so. She didn’t want to encourage the survivors to stay at the Superdome due to such relief, but somehow thought they should disperse back into the flooded city once the hurricane passed.

President Bush pleaded with Governor Blanco that same day after the storm to get the National Guard into New Orleans. Not much happened. Seeing this, he asked her to give him Federal authority over the state’s Guard. She refused.

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 03:25 PM
IIRC:

Katrina hit landfall on Monday morning.
By Monday night, the hurricane had passed through NO, and people were partying in the French Quarter. In the streets, dry streets, torn and tattered, but dry. Parties.
When did the levy break? Was it Tuesday morning? (I'm having a hard time remembering now.)

When did the civil unrest begin? I don't remember. Was it on Tuesday, when the flooding started?

If that's the case (and please correct me if I am wrong, as I want the timeline clear in my mind), maybe the early Tuesday morning calls between Nagrin, Blanco, FEMA, et al were knowing that there was chaos and assistance needed, but not as bad as what was to come. Levy breaks and all hell really does break lose.

Is anybody clear on WHEN Blanco asked for the 24-hour delay? Was it Tuesday before the levy broke, Tuesday right after the levy broke, or ?

If it was on Tuesday, then 24 hours would make it Wednesday when she did ask for official fed aid.

Just a thought, but may be incorrect. Please correct if not. Thanks.

KrazyKollector
09-08-2005, 03:29 PM
Because that's what we expect. We expect the best he could do, and if that wasn't done, it's a problem. He couldn't fix everything but what didn't he do that he could have? If Bush could have federalized the guard and chose not to, or chose not to until Saturday, aren't you concerned?

Do you not care if his policies and procedures and decisions made this worse?I don't know. Let's disect the '99 Hurrican that got Clinton flamed. The Dems bailed him out saying the same thing we are saying now. And that was a minor disater compared to now.

I am sorry but I truly feel that a few people are just trying to make the President look bad, as if it's a goal in life.

"Democrats lost 9/11 to Bush. They don't want to lose two disasters to him"
That is being said over and over and getting proven to be true, over and over.

His policies and procedures are the same as they were for other disasters and with other Presidents.
Even in civil unrest, I am pretty dang sure that the Gov has to ask for help.

Aren't YOU concerned that LA is being run by a Governor who is unable to handle the task at hand? How many people's death will you put into her hands? Nagin's hands?

tipper
09-08-2005, 03:32 PM
IIRC:

Katrina hit landfall on Monday morning.
By Monday night, the hurricane had passed through NO, and people were partying in the French Quarter. In the streets, dry streets, torn and tattered, but dry. Parties.
When did the levy break? Was it Tuesday morning? (I'm having a hard time remembering now.)

When did the civil unrest begin? I don't remember. Was it on Tuesday, when the flooding started?

If that's the case (and please correct me if I am wrong, as I want the timeline clear in my mind), maybe the early Tuesday morning calls between Nagrin, Blanco, FEMA, et al were knowing that there was chaos and assistance needed, but not as bad as what was to come. Levy breaks and all hell really does break lose.

Is anybody clear on WHEN Blanco asked for the 24-hour delay? Was it Tuesday before the levy broke, Tuesday right after the levy broke, or ?

If it was on Tuesday, then 24 hours would make it Wednesday when she did ask for official fed aid.

Just a thought, but may be incorrect. Please correct if not. Thanks.
The asked for 24 hour delay I heard about was when Bush flew down there. The mayor, gov and Bush were together (on Air Force One?)and the mayor was saying you two have to get your act together. Bush and the gov went off and came back. Bush said he was ready to move but the gov wanted another 24 hours. What day did Bush visit?

Dara
09-08-2005, 03:36 PM
IIRC:

Katrina hit landfall on Monday morning.
By Monday night, the hurricane had passed through NO, and people were partying in the French Quarter. In the streets, dry streets, torn and tattered, but dry. Parties.
When did the levy break? Was it Tuesday morning? (I'm having a hard time remembering now.)

When did the civil unrest begin? I don't remember. Was it on Tuesday, when the flooding started?

If that's the case (and please correct me if I am wrong, as I want the timeline clear in my mind), maybe the early Tuesday morning calls between Nagrin, Blanco, FEMA, et al were knowing that there was chaos and assistance needed, but not as bad as what was to come. Levy breaks and all hell really does break lose.

Is anybody clear on WHEN Blanco asked for the 24-hour delay? Was it Tuesday before the levy broke, Tuesday right after the levy broke, or ?

If it was on Tuesday, then 24 hours would make it Wednesday when she did ask for official fed aid.

Just a thought, but may be incorrect. Please correct if not. Thanks.
Timeline is important. The 24 hour request was made, I believe, on Thursday.

But while looking to confirm that, I found something else that will make us all (well, some of us) crazy.

In my first post, I put up a snippet that said Bush couldn't use active-duty troops without invoking the Insurrection Act.

I found this (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050903/NEWS/50903022):

WASHINGTON — President Bush, seeking to stem criticism that a slow federal response has contributed to needless misery, said today he is ordering additional active duty forces to the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast.

“The enormity of the task requires more resources,” the president said. “In America we do not abandon our fellow citizens in their hour of need.”

Bush said 4,000 active duty troops are already in the area and 7,000 more will arrive in the next 72 hours from the Army’s 82nd Airborne from Fort Bragg, N.C., 1st Cavalry Division from Fort Hood, Texas, and the Marines’ 1st and 2nd Expeditionary forces from Camp Pendleton, Calif., and Camp Lejeune, N.C. It's dated September 3. He already had 4000 troops in the area.

tybee204
09-08-2005, 03:36 PM
Friday, Sept 2

KrazyKollector
09-08-2005, 03:40 PM
It's up to you whether or not to participate, but I am trying to discuss this HUGE issue. I know some simply want to blame the mayor and governor, and we should certainly look at them hard and hold them accountable. But not to the exclusion of the federal government.

Why is there such resistance to questioning Bush when there is no such resistance to talking about the state and local level?And some just want to blame it on the President.
I don't think he can take control over the Governor nor should he. She had aides, who obviously were as clueless as she was.
Perhaps an Amendment to the Constitution giving the Senators the right to take over and ask the President for help.
But, if it was written that the President could take control if the Governor wasn't doing what was needed, the Dems would scream that he was trying to take over individual states.

In the eyes of many Dems, there is nothing the President can do right. It gets a bit tiring.

I see a lot of resistance from some talking about how the State and local government failed. They just want to gloss it over and go for the throat of the President. They try to guise it under "nice" terms, but the objective is the same.
I bet the Democratic Underground is a good place to trash the President.

Dara
09-08-2005, 03:40 PM
I don't know. Let's disect the '99 Hurrican that got Clinton flamed. The Dems bailed him out saying the same thing we are saying now. And that was a minor disater compared to now. Go ahead. There's even a special place (http://websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=27) to do so.

I am sorry but I truly feel that a few people are just trying to make the President look bad, as if it's a goal in life. I could say the reverse, but I am trying to respect the moderator's posts and talk about the posts and not the posters.

Aren't YOU concerned that LA is being run by a Governor who is unable to handle the task at hand? How many people's death will you put into her hands? Nagin's hands? As I've said, this isn't the thread for that. And why, if we can talk about that, and we are talking about a lot, can't we talk about this?

Dara
09-08-2005, 03:42 PM
Friday, Sept 2
Thank you. So he gave her until September 3, and then he sent in troops. Which, it seems, requires the IA. Why couldn't he do it sooner? On Friday, he gave the governor another 24 hours. Doesn't that bother anyone?

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 04:00 PM
Thank you. So he gave her until September 3, and then he sent in troops. Which, it seems, requires the IA. Why couldn't he do it sooner? On Friday, he gave the governor another 24 hours. Doesn't that bother anyone?

Honestly, not as much as the Governor delaying from the flooding Tuesday morning, hell breaking out on Tuesday, the Superdome a disaster, the Mayor and the Governor crying about it on Wednesday, yet she still delays, delays, delays the official request for fed aid that's needed when Bush and she are together on Friday, she STILLLLLLL asks for another 24? I just cannot fathom why. This is one of my key sticking points. Why? Tuesday through Friday, and she still asks for another 24, which makes it Saturday. What good, possible reason could she have? I see your frustration why Bush didn't slap her off to the side and bulldoze in, but there are others of us that just can't get past the incompetency of the State level.

I just wanted to answer that, and then will try to back out, so as to keep it back on the topic of what Bush could have done quicker and better.

KrazyKollector
09-08-2005, 04:05 PM
Well, Dara, I guess there is absolutely nothing left to say except I hope I never live in the Country you propose. I hope I'm dead and gone before that precedence is set and then repeated over and over and over again. People ask for things...demand things....and then find out it might not have been such a good thing to ask for. That old saying, "Careful what you wish for." Much of this Monday morning quarterbacking - and I won't say all because we are talking about a catastrophic natural disaster - wouldn't be what it is if the Governor had something along the lines of, "Mr. President, got a situation going on down here I need some help with," versus, "Mr. President, I want all the federal money you can round up, load up, beg for, but keep your azzz in Washington D.C. and your cotton-picking mitts off my state. I'm quite capable of handling it myself.":blowkiss: :clap: :clap: :blowkiss:

JBean
09-08-2005, 04:05 PM
Honestly, not as much as the Governor delaying from the flooding Tuesday morning, hell breaking out on Tuesday, the Superdome a disaster, the Mayor and the Governor crying about it on Wednesday, yet she still delays, delays, delays the official request for fed aid that's needed when Bush and she are together on Friday, she STILLLLLLL asks for another 24? I just cannot fathom why. This is one of my key sticking points. Why? Tuesday through Friday, and she still asks for another 24, which makes it Saturday. What good, possible reason could she have? I see your frustration why Bush didn't slap her off to the side and bulldoze in, but there are others of us that just can't get past the incompetency of the State level.

I just wanted to answer that, and then will try to back out, so as to keep it back on the topic of what Bush could have done quicker and better.Oh DD! I thought I wrote that lol. I scared myself.

Pepper
09-08-2005, 04:12 PM
Thank you. So he gave her until September 3, and then he sent in troops. Which, it seems, requires the IA. Why couldn't he do it sooner? On Friday, he gave the governor another 24 hours. Doesn't that bother anyone?Not nearly as much as her inability to take charge and made meaningful decisions bothers me. Bush was trying to live by the Constitution and act within his Executive powers. Blanco is a nincompoop.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 04:12 PM
Wednesday, September 7

Explosive revelation by Fox News' Major Garrett.

On the Fox News Channel just a little while ago, Major Garrett, broke a very disturbing story for those on the left that want to play the blame game regarding the reaction to the Katrina. Here's his interview with Hugh Hewitt moments ago:

HH: Joined now by Major Garrett, correspondent for the Fox News Channel, We talked about that. Major Garrett, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show.

MG: Hugh, always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.

HH: You just broke a pretty big story. I was watching up on the corner television in my studio, and it's headlined that the Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies to the Superdome, Major Garrett. Tell us what you found out.

MG: Well, the Red Cross, Hugh, had pre-positioned a literal vanguard of trucks with water, food, blankets and hygiene items. They're not really big into medical response items, but those are the three biggies that we saw people at the New Orleans Superdome, and the convention center, needing most accutely. And all of us in America, I think, reasonably asked ourselves, geez. You know, I watch hurricanes all the time. And I see correspondents standing among rubble and refugees and evacuaees. But I always either see that Red Cross or Salvation Army truck nearby. Why don't I see that?

HH: And the answer is?

MG: The answer is the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come.

HH: Now Major Garrett, on what day did they block the delivery? Do you know specifically?

MG: I am told by the Red Cross, immediately after the storm passed.

HH: Okay, so that would be on Monday afternoon.

MG: That would have been Monday or Tuesday. The exact time, the hour, I don't have. But clearly, they had an evacuee situation at the Superdome, and of course, people gravitated to the convention center on an ad hoc basis. They sort of invented that as another place to go, because they couldn't stand the conditions at the Superdome.

HH: Any doubt in the Red Cross' mind that they were ready to go, but they were blocked?

MG: No. Absolutely none. They are absolutely unequivocal on that point.



http://www.radioblogger.com/


HH: And are they eager to get this story out there, because they are chagrined by the coverage that's been emanating from New Orleans?

MG: I think they are. I mean, and look. Every agency that is in the private sector, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Feed The Children, all the ones we typically see are aggrieved by all the crap that's being thrown around about the response to this hurricane, because they work hand and glove with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When FEMA is tarred and feathered, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army are tarred and feathered, because they work on a cooperative basis. They feel they are being sullied by this reaction.

HH: Of course they are. Now Major Garrett, what about the Louisiana governor's office of Homeland Security. Have they responded to this charge by the Red Cross, which is a blockbuster charge?

MG: I have not been able to reach them yet. But, what they have said consistently is, and what they told the Red Cross, we don't want you to come in there, because we have evacuees that we want to get out. And if you come in, they're more likely to stay. So I want your listeners to follow me here. At the very moment that Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans was screaming where's the food, where's the water, it was over the overpass, and state officials were saying you can't come in.

HH: How long would it have taken to deliver those supplies, Major Garrett, into the Superdome and possibly the convention center?

MG: That is a more difficult question to answer than you might think. There were areas, obviously, as you approached the Superdome, that were difficult to get to, because of the flood waters. And as the Red Cross explained it to me, look. We don't have amphibious vehicles. We have trucks and ambulance type vehicles. In some cases, after the flood waters rose as high as they did, we would have needed, at minimal, the Louisiana National Guard to bring us in, or maybe something bigger and badder, from the Marines or Army-type vehicle. They're not sure about that. But remember, Hugh, we were transfixed, I know I was. I'm sure you were and your listeners were, by my colleague, Shep Smith, and others on that overpass.

HH: Right.

MG: ...saying, wait a minute. We drove here. It didn't take us anything to drive here.

HH: Right.

MG: Why can't people just come here?

HH: I also have to conclude from what you're telling me, Major Garrett, is that had they been allowed to deliver when they wanted to deliver, which is at least a little bit prior to the levee, or at least prior to the waters rising, the supplies would have been pre-positioned, and the relief...you know, the people in the Superdome, and possibly at the convention center, I want to come back to that, would have been spared the worst of their misery.

MG: They would have been spared the lack of food, water and hygiene. I don't think there's any doubt that they would not have been spared the indignity of having nor workable bathrooms in short order.

HH: Now Major Garrett, let's turn to the convention center, because this will be, in the aftermath...did the Red Cross have ready to go into the convention center the supplies that we're talking about as well?

MG: Sure. They could have gone to any location, provided that the water wasn't too high, and they got some assistance.

HH: Now, were they utterly dependent upon the Louisiana state officials to okay them?

MG: Yes.

HH: Because you know, they do work with FEMA. But is it your understanding that FEMA and the Red Cross and the other relief agencies must get tht state's okay to act?

MG: As the Red Cross told me, they said look. We are not state actors. We are not the Army. We are a private organziation. We work in cooperation with both FEMA and the state officials. But the state told us A) it's not safe, because the water is dangerous. And we're now learning how toxic the water is. B) there's a security situation, because they didn't have a handle on the violence on the ground. And C) and I think this is most importantly, they wanted to evacuate out. They didn't want people to stay.

HH: Now off the record, will the Red Cross tell you what they think of Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin?

MG: No.

HH: Will they tell you what they think about FEMA director Brown?

MG: No.

HH: Will they tell you any...will they give any advice of how to make sure this doesn't happen again?

MG: Well, there is something, Hugh, that I think we have to be honest with ourselves about. New Orleans is a situation, because of its geography, utterly unique in America. We don't build cities in bowls, except there. This complicated the Red Cross efforts, and the FEMA efforts, from the start. In the mid-90's, the Red Cross opened a shelter in South Carolina that was eventually flooded. And there was a big controversy about that. After that, the Red Cross made a policy decision that it would never shelter, or seek to shelter, any evacuee from any hurricane, anywhere where flooding was likely to occur. High ground is where they were going to be, and where they were going to go. Well, that basically rules out all of New Orleans.

HH: Sure. Does the Red Cross, though, assist in evacuation, Major Garrett?

MG: Not under the state plan in Louisiana. And not very many other places, either, because again, the Red Cross is a responding private charity. It is not an evacuation charity. It does not assume, as you can well imagine, Hugh, the inevitable liability that would come with being in charge of evacuating.

HH: How senior are your sources at the Red Cross, Major Garrett?

MG: They're right next to Marty Evans, the president.

HH: So you have no doubt in your mind that they have...

MG: Oh, none. None. And I want to give credit to Bill O'Reilly, because he had Marty Evans on the O'Reilly Factor last night. And this is the first time Marty Evans said it. She said it on the O'Reilly Factor last night in a very sort of brief intro to her longer comments about dealing with the housing and other needs of the evacuees now. She said look. We were ready. We couldn't go in. They wouldn't let us in, and the interview continued. I developed it more fully today.

HH: And the 'they' are the Louisiana state officials?

MG: Right.

HH: Now any in the 'they'...is the New Orleans' mayor's staff involved as well? Or the New Orleans police department?

MG: Not that I'm aware of, because the decision was made and communicated to the Red Cross by the state department of Homeland Security and the state National Guard. Both of which report to the governor.

HH: Do they have any paper records of this communication?

MG: I did not ask that. It's a good question. I'll follow up with them.

HH: I sure would love to know that. And if you get it, send it to me. We'll put it up on the blog. Major Garrett, great story. Please keep us posted. Look forward to talking to you a lot in the next couple of weeks on this story. Thanks for breaking away from the Fox News Channel this afternoon.

End of interview

TexMex
09-08-2005, 04:15 PM
Not nearly as much as her inability to take charge and made meaningful decisions bothers me. Bush was trying to live by the Constitution and act within his Executive powers. Blanco is a nincompoop.

Saw a sign in the Astrodome last weekend that read:

How do you spell DISASTER?

B-L-A-N-C-O

Hi pepper

less0305
09-08-2005, 04:15 PM
I think what we are seeing is a myriad of acts, declarations, proclamations and even laws that may contradict each other, and may not all have been tested to their Constitutionality. That's not so unusual in a government as complex as ours.

So true!!! Even the part about mandatory evacuations. Lawyers have said you can demand it, you can order it, but you can't legally go inside someone's house and take them out unless you have evidence of a criminal activity. And went on to say, if they did do it, it probably wouldn't hold up in court. At least, that's how I heard some attorneys explaining it in a roundtable discussion on some show I was watching. They seemed to all agree.

Dara
09-08-2005, 04:18 PM
Not nearly as much as her inability to take charge and made meaningful decisions bothers me. Bush was trying to live by the Constitution and act within his Executive powers. Blanco is a nincompoop.
Can't you be bothered about both? I can.

Now, I've tried to keep this thread on target but the very telling response of some is to bring in issues that deflect blame. That's just sad.

How does the report that the state blocked the Red Cross on the first day absolve Bush? If anything that was a DAY ONE indicator that perhaps the governor wasn't doing her job and he needed to act.

less0305
09-08-2005, 04:20 PM
Thank you. So he gave her until September 3, and then he sent in troops. Which, it seems, requires the IA. Why couldn't he do it sooner? On Friday, he gave the governor another 24 hours. Doesn't that bother anyone?

Simple....NO. Doesn't concern me. Okay. No, nada, zilch.

Dara
09-08-2005, 04:27 PM
Honestly, not as much as the Governor delaying from the flooding Tuesday morning, hell breaking out on Tuesday, the Superdome a disaster, the Mayor and the Governor crying about it on Wednesday, yet she still delays, delays, delays the official request for fed aid that's needed when Bush and she are together on Friday, she STILLLLLLL asks for another 24? I just cannot fathom why. This is one of my key sticking points. Why? Tuesday through Friday, and she still asks for another 24, which makes it Saturday. What good, possible reason could she have? That's a compelling list. And you're right to be bothered. So, why did Bush defer to her? Why did he let her keep doing things to make that list grow and let more people die? If she was keeping the Red Cross out Monday or Tuesday, that was a big indicator of how thing were going to go and if we already have this long list, I wonder what Bush knew Friday when he left her in charge. People were still dying.

What reason could she have to ask for 24 more hours? I don't know and I'm not going to discuss it here, because the fact is (I htink) she did ask and the one person who could say no deferred to her. Her role is crucial to disset, but I personally would prefer it be left for the many threads (I think we got a new one in the last hour) where we're discussing the state and local level.

I see your frustration why Bush didn't slap her off to the side and bulldoze in, but there are others of us that just can't get past the incompetency of the State level. Ok. But if those people can't get past it to consider Bush's response fairly, perhaps they're not in the right frame of mind to discuss it. If you're (generic) resorting personal attacks on me and high fiving those making them, then maybe this is one topic you can't discuss yet. I know I'm too upset to discuss the subject of one thread. I started two responses and each time stopped because I was too emotional and I didn't think my tone would help.
I just wanted to answer that, and then will try to back out, so as to keep it back on the topic of what Bush could have done quicker and better. Thank you. I appreciate that.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 04:28 PM
Can't you be bothered about both? I can.

Now, I've tried to keep this thread on target but the very telling response of some is to bring in issues that deflect blame. That's just sad.

How does the report that the state blocked the Red Cross on the first day absolve Bush? If anything that was a DAY ONE indicator that perhaps the governor wasn't doing her job and he needed to act.

The thread is: Could Bush Have Done More


Tuesday, August 29, as the levees broke after the brunt of the storm had passed. That very day, the Army Corps of Engineers was already working on levee repair. And the Coast Guard was already in the air with helicopters rescuing people from rooftops, ultimately employing 300 choppers. These are both Federal agencies under Bush’s command.

DAY 1--Bush was doing his job. What were the Mayor and Gov doing?

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 04:36 PM
Now, I've tried to keep this thread on target but the very telling response of some is to bring in issues that deflect blame. That's just sad.



Personally, I don't consider myself deflecting blame. I'm just focused on understanding, from the ground floor up, what happened in the beginning...and moving on up. It will get to FEMA and Bush, it will. But since I don't truly understand and know all the details, timelines, etc., I don't know EXACTLY what to blame on him. It will take time. Lord knows everyday we're learning more.

It's no different than any investigation done here at work. We start at the beginning, the lowest level and go on up the chain-of-command. Who knew what, and when. I can't blame one of the supervisors when I don't fully understand what the subordinate did or did not do. And when did the supervisor become aware of it? And then what did he do to try to resolve it? Did the supervisor handle it within procedure, and properly? If not, a whole new investigation is begun. And round and round we go. But it always starts from the "incident."

JMHO.

Pepper
09-08-2005, 04:40 PM
Can't you be bothered about both? I can.

Now, I've tried to keep this thread on target but the very telling response of some is to bring in issues that deflect blame. That's just sad.

How does the report that the state blocked the Red Cross on the first day absolve Bush? If anything that was a DAY ONE indicator that perhaps the governor wasn't doing her job and he needed to act.Trying to discuss Bush's actions in a vacuum without discussing others is like trying to remove the egg from a freshly baked cake. It can't be done. It is a very complex issue all levels of government.

Dara
09-08-2005, 04:41 PM
The thread is: Could Bush Have Done More


Tuesday, August 29, as the levees broke after the brunt of the storm had passed. That very day, the Army Corps of Engineers was already working on levee repair. And the Coast Guard was already in the air with helicopters rescuing people from rooftops, ultimately employing 300 choppers. These are both Federal agencies under Bush’s command.

DAY 1--Bush was doing his job. What were the Mayor and Gov doing?
He did something. Could he have done more?

Well, we haven't really gotten to this but he could have done more by appointing qualified people instead of Brown and Cheroff. But that's getting into a whole new area.

The worse a picture that is painted of the lower government, the worse it looks for Bush to delay.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 04:44 PM
He did something. Could he have done more?

Well, we haven't really gotten to this but he could have done more by appointing qualified people instead of Brown and Cheroff. But that's getting into a whole new area.

The worse a picture that is painted of the lower government, the worse it looks for Bush to delay.

He didn't delay

Day one ---within hours of the levee collapse Bush had people starting to repair it and ordered the Coast Guard to rescue people.

Dara
09-08-2005, 04:44 PM
Trying to discuss Bush's actions in a vacuum without discussing others is like trying to remove the egg from a freshly baked cake. It can't be done. It is a very complex issue all levels of government.
It is complex, but the way most posters are bringing in the mayor and governor is jsut to say, "So what, they're MORE to blame." Ok, if we concede that, why did he leave them, or her, in charge if legally he could have acted?

Dara
09-08-2005, 04:46 PM
He didn't delay

Day one ---within hours of the levee collapse Bush had people starting to repair it and ordered the Coast Guard to rescue people.
That is one specific act. So, he had the power to do more. The governor didn't stop him, and she was calling the shots, right? So he did that. Why did he falter later?

TexMex
09-08-2005, 04:49 PM
It is complex, but the way most posters are bringing in the mayor and governor is jsut to say, "So what, they're MORE to blame." Ok, if we concede that, why did he leave them, or her, in charge if legally he could have acted?

So....you think Clinton or any other POTUS would have not left the Gov in charge? The President can Federalize control over a state’s guard on his own order, but doing so without a Governor’s consent to deal with an in state natural disaster would be a supreme insult to the Governor and the state. In addition, using Federal troops for local police actions is against the law and has been since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 04:51 PM
That is one specific act. So, he had the power to do more. The governor didn't stop him, and she was calling the shots, right? So he did that. Why did he falter later?

Actually it's two acts

1. Army Corps of Engineers repairing the levee.

2. Coast Guard

These are agencies UNDER HIS CONTROL.

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 04:52 PM
Ok. But if those people can't get past it to consider Bush's response fairly, perhaps they're not in the right frame of mind to discuss it. If you're (generic) resorting personal attacks on me and high fiving those making them, then maybe this is one topic you can't discuss yet. I know I'm too upset to discuss the subject of one thread. I started two responses and each time stopped because I was too emotional and I didn't think my tone would help.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

It is tough, I agree. It's an emotional issue. We (WS) are just a tiny sample of the bigger society, divided in many ways over this, and pulling together in other ways.

Regarding the high -fiving, etc., that goes on here both ways, on different threads. Human nature. Man, I hate going to the PP. It's absolutely wicked over there, and a lot more personal a lot of the time.

I thought your idea of starting the topical threads was a good one, and yeah, heck, it's gone OT just like so many of them do. I will try to respect your wishes, but sometimes it's hard NOT to agree with someone, or put my own :twocents: into it.

If there is a thread started more centered on the local/state level, to discuss that, maybe that's where I need to hang out, as it is a definite interest to me.
Thanks.

Dara
09-08-2005, 04:53 PM
Personally, I don't consider myself deflecting blame. I'm just focused on understanding, from the ground floor up, what happened in the beginning...and moving on up. It will get to FEMA and Bush, it will. But since I don't truly understand and know all the details, timelines, etc., I don't know EXACTLY what to blame on him. It will take time. Lord knows everyday we're learning more. Ok. If you feel it's too soon to discuss, I guess I can expect more posts from you as more information comes out. I don't know what else to say.

It's no different than any investigation done here at work. We start at the beginning, the lowest level and go on up the chain-of-command. Who knew what, and when. I can't blame one of the supervisors when I don't fully understand what the subordinate did or did not do. And when did the supervisor become aware of it? And then what did he do to try to resolve it? Did the supervisor handle it within procedure, and properly? If not, a whole new investigation is begun. And round and round we go. But it always starts from the "incident."
JMHO. Right. Just your opinion. You want to start at the bottom. It's a good thing there are plenty of threads where there are other people who also want to start there. Do you also think it's too soon for people to be saying Bush is NOT to blame? That he did all he could? Where's your post to them?

Dara
09-08-2005, 04:55 PM
Actually it's two acts

1. Army Corps of Engineers repairing the levee.

2. Coast Guard

These are agencies UNDER HIS CONTROL.
Ok. And he apparently could have had the National Guard, too, if he wanted them. We sure needed them in there.

Ntegrity
09-08-2005, 04:55 PM
Hurricane Katrina timeline (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/katrina/interactive/timeline.katrina.large/frameset.exclude.html)

Dara
09-08-2005, 04:57 PM
It is tough, I agree. It's an emotional issue. We (WS) are just a tiny sample of the bigger society, divided in many ways over this, and pulling together in other ways.

Regarding the high -fiving, etc., that goes on here both ways, on different threads. Human nature. Man, I hate going to the PP. It's absolutely wicked over there, and a lot more personal a lot of the time.

I thought your idea of starting the topical threads was a good one, and yeah, heck, it's gone OT just like so many of them do. I will try to respect your wishes, but sometimes it's hard NOT to agree with someone, or put my own :twocents: into it.

If there is a thread started more centered on the local/state level, to discuss that, maybe that's where I need to hang out, as it is a definite interest to me.
Thanks.
Thanks. I don't want you to not put in your two cents, but if it's only to say it's too soon to talk about it, all I can really say back is, not to me. But I welcome your insights.

I also haven't seen you high five a personal attack, but if you did :slap:

(kidding)

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 05:00 PM
Ok. If you feel it's too soon to discuss, I guess I can expect more posts from you as more information comes out. I don't know what else to say.

Right. Just your opinion. You want to start at the bottom. It's a good thing there are plenty of threads where there are other people who also want to start there. Do you also think it's too soon for people to be saying Bush is NOT to blame? That he did all he could? Where's your post to them?

I think I've been quite consistent, I don't think I've ever said Bush is NOT to blame.

And yes, it is my opinion. Yours is quite clear, I won't change your mind. Mine is clear, I like starting at the bottom and going up. I hope you respect that as well.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 05:03 PM
Ok. And he apparently could have had the National Guard, too, if he wanted them. We sure needed them in there.


All the Gov had to do was ask. She didn't. She wanted the 'control'.

The National Guard reports to the Gov.

Dara
09-08-2005, 05:03 PM
So....you think Clinton or any other POTUS would have not left the Gov in charge? The President can Federalize control over a state’s guard on his own order, but doing so without a Governor’s consent to deal with an in state natural disaster would be a supreme insult to the Governor and the state. In addition, using Federal troops for local police actions is against the law and has been since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
I don't know. FEMA was stronger in Clinton's day, so maybe it wouldn't have been necessary. But if the governor was such a problem, perhaps. I do know that in this case, a supreme insult would have saved lives, and I think Clinton would have been more likely to do it if it were needed.

Bush, it appears, legally could have done more. It must be hard to risk fallout from using a little-used act, but it appears he could have.

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 05:04 PM
Thanks. I don't want you to not put in your two cents, but if it's only to say it's too soon to talk about it, all I can really say back is, not to me. But I welcome your insights.

I also haven't seen you high five a personal attack, but if you did :slap:

(kidding)


(Snickered)

Dara
09-08-2005, 05:07 PM
All the Gov had to do was ask. She didn't. She wanted the 'control'.

The National Guard reports to the Gov.
Right. All she had to do was ask. Which she quite posssibly did (New Mexico, White House didn't approve until Thursday). I understand that. She should have done a lot of things and not done others, and she is likely to blame for many things, many deaths. She could be the anti-Christ, secretly dancing gleefully in front of an altar because people were dying in the streets and areas of NO. That doesn't change whether or not Bush could have federalized the troops earlier.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 05:07 PM
Hurricane Katrina timeline (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/katrina/interactive/timeline.katrina.large/frameset.exclude.html)

Muchas Gracias Ntegrity

DEPUTYDAWG
09-08-2005, 05:11 PM
Hurricane Katrina timeline (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/katrina/interactive/timeline.katrina.large/frameset.exclude.html)

Thanks! Skimmed through it, I will write notes later...

TexMex
09-08-2005, 05:20 PM
Right. All she had to do was ask. That doesn't change whether or not Bush could have federalized the troops earlier.


The role of the Feds is to provide assistance when asked--Bush did.

I'm getting the feeling that nothing Bush does would ever be alright with you.

You started a whole thread to bash the Pres when you don't have all the facts on his role in the matter.

Dara
09-08-2005, 05:26 PM
The role of the Feds is to provide assistance when asked--Bush did. That is not the only role.

I'm getting the feeling that nothing Bush does would ever be alright with you. You would be wrong. And you are, imo, concerning yourself far too much with my motivations and beliefs without much self-reflection.

You started a whole thread to bash the Pres when you don't have all the facts on his role in the matter. That is an untrue statement. I did not start a thread to bash the president. I started a thread to discuss his role in this crisis, and hopefully discuss if he could have done more. I feel he could have, but I also am trying to figure out the particulars. For you to deem if bashing is quote revealing, imo.

But please feel free to go scold the starters of any other threads that were discuss the responses of other officials. I don't actually consider them bashing threads, but then I'm not threatened by the opinions of others. I think when people throw the word "bashing" around they're trying to discredit the other person. It's a defense mechanism, I've noticed.

concernedperson
09-08-2005, 05:40 PM
Wow, this is interesting and unexpected. CNN.com Quick Vote

Which level of government is most responsible for a slow response to Katrina?

Federal 44%

State 18%

Local 16%

They're all equally responsible 22%

Dara
09-08-2005, 05:44 PM
You don't acknowledge anything the Pres. did right. In this issue, that's probably right. We could talk about other issues, and my stance might surprise you but more often than not, I am on the other side.

But, TexMex, think about this. If you're keeping track of what I say or don't say, I think you're getting too fixated on me and too defensive on behalf of the president. That reveals a lot, too. You're getting way too personal, imo, and I'd like it to stop.

That reveals much about any motivation to 'discuss' Bush. That's ALL you post about. Wow, I'm flattered. I'd be more flattered if you got it right. But it's not your place to decide what I should and shouldn't post about. If I really did only post about Bush, which is not true, it's allowed. And as long as I'm posting within the rules, I'm not causing any trouble. I'm just discussing and posting information.
IMO Bush bashing is a reflex to some people. So is defending him. But so far, the defenders seem to be more emotionally invested, if you look at the posts in which people get personal.
I think mistakes were made at all levels including Feds. We agree. I thought we could use one thread to discuss President Bush's response, since he is one of the key figures. We already had individual threads for the mayor and the governor. This is the only one that people are objecting to and I started it as evenly as I could. I even used a conservative source.
But the primary people who could have should have DONE MORE---are the Mayor and Gov of NOLA. I respect your opinion. Fortunately, there are many threads in which extensive discussions are ongoing where you can find like-minded individuals, since that might be what you prefer. You'll even find my posts from in those threads, and Bush isn't even mentioned. Though you claim he's ALL I talk about.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 05:47 PM
I think everyone could have done more. I think FEMA needs to look seriously at it's leadership and make the necessary changes across the board.

But as I have consistently posted, how can we expect the highest rung on the ladder to be able to support evrything when the lower rungs have all given way?

Sure, with hindsight it's easy to say what should have happened with regards to FEMA, but it just isn;t structured as a first repsonder. No matter how much we would like it to be, it isn't. The idea is to aid and assist a city/ state that is already helping itself.
If the lower levels are not holdng up their end of the deal it is virtually impossible for the President or anyone else to save the day. We just watched it happen.
I'll challenge individuals to do their homework on election day.The governor was elected. Do the candidates in your area have your safety as a priority? I can honestly say I have never even looked into it.

Lowest level to highest level had to do their part and it did not happen.
This is very true. I lived in New Orleans for 10 years and I can vouch for the fact the city governent did close to squat re hurricane/disaster preparedness, despite its being below sea level. The atteitude was 9and always has been) every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost down there. It's one of the reasons (akong with the pizz-poor eceonomy and hellacious crime rate) I moved away 13 years ago.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 05:51 PM
As I've said all along, that's more reason for him to take action. I understand state and local government are first responders. But how long should it take if the first responders fail before the president exercises his powers and saves them? What do you think is reasonable?

I can't really see why that's so hard to see. If the leaders were inept, and he could have acted, he should have. It just seems kind of obvious, and I want to know that if we get inept state and local leaders at the next disaster, the president will do what is in his power to help in a reasonable time period. Reasonable. Not as a first responder. Not as the first course of action. But when it is reasonable.

and
When I do say that, be frightened. But that's a twisting of my words, and just the kind of thing I see every time I bring up criticism of Bush. LOL. I'm sorry, but it's so predictable.

However, if news is so widely reported and was conflicting with information he was getting from the governor, shouldn't he maybe think he better find out. Except his two appointees, who are also his eyes and ears, didn't know the basics either. Do you really think if the governor is so inept as most of Bush's defenders are claiming, she could fool him into thinking all was well on the streets of NO and that she had everything under control? If we all heard all those reports of aid being turned away and violence, and it's all her fault and all her decisions, I don't expect him to ignore news reports. There's a discrepancy. Find out what's going on. I'd hope he didn't need the news to keep him involved, since HS told us they were going to be coordinating the effort ( see the White House site) but since his own appointees apparently couldn't keep him informed maybe he should at least monitor the news next time. Or appoint, you know, competent people.

What you're saying is that you expected the federal government to decalre MARTIAL LAW before the disaster occured and negate the powers of the state's elected officals BEFORE the fact. That is bascally not allowed in the constitution, and I think we fought a war over this 140+ years ago.

Dara
09-08-2005, 05:52 PM
What you're saying is that you expected the federal government to decalre MARTIAL LAW before the disaster occured and negate the powers of the state's elected officals BEFORE the fact. That is bascally not allowed in the constitution, and I think we fought a war over this 140+ years ago.
Nope. You misread.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 05:55 PM
Probably not by the time they were being raped and shot at.

At which point if the president had the power to stop the violence, why didn't he?
Was he supposed to teleport troops in there ala Star Trek?
Troop deployment is not something you can snap your fingers and make happen, even under the best of circumstances. And when the land routes utilized for heavy equipment movement (ie the Interstates) have been blown into the lake, and the smaller state hwys are blocked with trees and downed powerlines, clearing a path to a water-bound city for not only thousands of troops but the supply convoy that provides them with support will take time, especially given the huge swath of destruction.

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:03 PM
Was he supposed to teleport troops in there ala Star Trek?
Troop deployment is not something you can snap your fingers and make happen, even under the best of circumstances. And when the land routes utilized for heavy equipment movement (ie the Interstates) have been blown into the lake, and the smaller state hwys are blocked with trees and downed powerlines, clearing a path to a water-bound city for not only thousands of troops but the supply convoy that provides them with support will take time, especially given the huge swath of destruction.
So now, he couldn't get them there?

Well, since he couldn't deploy them until he invoked IA (I am not 100% sure but so far, this looks accurate), and as last as Friday he hadn't done that and apparently gave the governor another 24 hours to decide if she wanted him to. Blame the governor, sure, but what about the guy who let her do it?

The Pentagon also authorized Adm. Timothy Keating, head of the Northern Command, to lay plans for possibly deploying active-duty troops — a move that can be ordered only by the president under the rarely used Insurrection Act. According to that, they knew the president might invoke IA, which suggests he could.

We manage to get other places under terrible circumstances.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 06:03 PM
Nope. You misread.
No, I think you don't understand just how screwed up Louisiana is re its political parties, the corrupt political leaders, and its century long tendency to put off tomorrow what they could today. Like I said, i lived there 10 years and it was/is a banana republic. And the federal government has to assume that the individual states actually have things in hand when they say "we have things in hand". Everything you wanted Bush to do in advance of Katrina would have required federalizing the state of Lousiana (and Alabama and Mississippi) and the declaration of martial law. And the people running LA would have fought tooth and nail re that decision.

Plus, it should be noted that the state of Louisiana privatized is hurricane preparedness to a company called IEM (Innovative Emergency Management) that supposedly was in charge of creating emergency plans for NO under such a situation as this. IEM has since removed the 2004 press release crowing about thei multi-million dollar contract for New Orelans.

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:07 PM
No, I think you don't understand just how screwed up Louisiana is re its political parties, the corrupt political leaders, and its century long tendency to put off tomorrow what they could today. Like I said, i lived there 10 years and it was/is a banana republic. And the federal government has to assume that the individual states actually have things in hand when they say "we have things in hand". Everything you wanted Bush to do in advance of Katrina would have required federalizing the state of Lousiana (and Alabama and Mississippi) and the declaration of martial law. And the people running LA would have fought tooth and nail re that decision. You didn't read the whole thread, did you?

Advance of Katrina? Advance? My biggest worry is after Katrina. If you don't know that, you really need to read the thread.

When people were lying there dying and the president apparently could have stopped it and didn't after days and days--if you think that's in advance of Katrina, I don't know how to help you.

Plus, it should be noted that the state of Louisiana privatized is hurricane preparedness to a company called IEM (Innovative Emergency Management) that supposedly was in charge of creating emergency plans for NO under such a situation as this. IEM has since removed the 2004 press release crowing about thei multi-million dollar contract for New Orelans.
And once we knew the people were dying and being raped and aid workers were getting shot at--I think that's when you stop saying, "Well, they should have been prepared" and you do what you can. If that's invoking a law that might cause political fallout and save lives, you do it. If he could do it, he had the obligation. And it looks like he did it Saturday, btw. Two different sources suggest that. So apparently he could.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 06:08 PM
No, I think you don't understand just how screwed up Louisiana is re its political parties, the corrupt political leaders, and its century long tendency to put off tomorrow what they could today. Like I said, i lived there 10 years and it was/is a banana republic. And the federal government has to assume that the individual states actually have things in hand when they say "we have things in hand". Everything you wanted Bush to do in advance of Katrina would have required federalizing the state of Lousiana (and Alabama and Mississippi) and the declaration of martial law. And the people running LA would have fought tooth and nail re that decision.

Plus, it should be noted that the state of Louisiana privatized is hurricane preparedness to a company called IEM (Innovative Emergency Management) that supposedly was in charge of creating emergency plans for NO under such a situation as this. IEM has since removed the 2004 press release crowing about thei multi-million dollar contract for New Orelans.

Absolutely correct.

concernedperson
09-08-2005, 06:13 PM
No, I think you don't understand just how screwed up Louisiana is re its political parties, the corrupt political leaders, and its century long tendency to put off tomorrow what they could today. Like I said, i lived there 10 years and it was/is a banana republic. And the federal government has to assume that the individual states actually have things in hand when they say "we have things in hand". Everything you wanted Bush to do in advance of Katrina would have required federalizing the state of Lousiana (and Alabama and Mississippi) and the declaration of martial law. And the people running LA would have fought tooth and nail re that decision.

Plus, it should be noted that the state of Louisiana privatized is hurricane preparedness to a company called IEM (Innovative Emergency Management) that supposedly was in charge of creating emergency plans for NO under such a situation as this. IEM has since removed the 2004 press release crowing about thei multi-million dollar contract for New Orelans.

I wonder if Louisiana can be annexed into the State of Texas? It is just so scary. They actually turned over hurricane preparedness for a sum to a private company? Although I am not fond of the Bush Administration right now, the Louisiana political machine is appalling.

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:14 PM
Absolutely correct.
And how did any of the take away Bush's legal right, if he had one, to use IA?

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 06:16 PM
So now, he couldn't get them there?

Well, since he couldn't deploy them until he invoked IA (I am not 100% sure but so far, this looks accurate), and as last as Friday he hadn't done that and apparently gave the governor another 24 hours to decide if she wanted him to. Blame the governor, sure, but what about the guy who let her do it?

According to that, they knew the president might invoke IA, which suggests he could.

We manage to get other places under terrible circumstances.
Yeah, in about the same amount of time.

This does not excuse the fact that the city of New Orleans had no plan except the Superdome, and, as it turns out, they knew the Superdome was Not A Good Idea after previous hurricanes. Rapes & murders occured then, as well.

And there's this thing called STATES RIGHTS. As I said, we found a war over them 140+ years ago. The President can not run roughshod over the elected governors. If a governor is being an idiot, there's not a whole lot the President can do that will not make things even worse than they already are.
It's up to the Governor's electorate to threaten them with impeachment for failure to act/ineptness, not the President.

The Federal governemnt does not turn on a dime. it turns on a $1.50
The fact they got as many people out as they did as fast as they did is actually impressive, if one knows the ity and the surrounding area.

And the disaster is not relegated to just new Orleans. Covington, Slidell, Mandeville, Waveland, Pass Christian, Bay St. Louis, Gulfort, Biloxi, Hattiesburg and Mobile, not to mention Grand Isle and hundreds of tiny towns scattered in between have been hit by this. New Orleans has gotten all the ink, but the damage goes far, far more than just the city. We have never had a natural disaster of this magnitude in the recorded history of our country. Ever. You can plan for destruction of biblical proportions, but there is a differerence between what's on paper and what's really confronting you in the here and now.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 06:18 PM
Right. All she had to do was ask. Which she quite posssibly did (New Mexico, White House didn't approve until Thursday). I understand that. She should have done a lot of things and not done others, and she is likely to blame for many things, many deaths. She could be the anti-Christ, secretly dancing gleefully in front of an altar because people were dying in the streets and areas of NO. That doesn't change whether or not Bush could have federalized the troops earlier.
You're dtermined to put the blame on Bush, regardless of all the other broken cogs gumming up the machine. Why?

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:20 PM
Yeah, in about the same amount of time. I don't think that's accurate.

This does not excuse the fact that the city of New Orleans had no plan except the Superdome, and, as it turns out, they knew the Superdome was Not A Good Idea after previous hurricanes. Rapes & murders occured then, as well. I didn't say it did. This thread is about Bush. And since none of that changes his response or invalidates the question of why he did not act sooner, I won't address it here.

And there's this thing called STATES RIGHTS. As I said, we found a war over them 140+ years ago. The President can not run roughshod over the elected governors. If a governor is being an idiot, there's not a whole lot the President can do that will not make things even worse than they already are. Right. He could, apparently, invoke IA. I know what he couldn't do. I want to know why he didn't do what he could do.
[quote]It's up to the Governor's electorate to threaten them with impeachment for failure to act/ineptness, not the President. [quote]
I the voters were a little busy dying being raped to start an impeachment rallying cry over something they were trying to survive.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 06:22 PM
And how did any of the take away Bush's legal right, if he had one, to use IA?


It doesn't take away his legal rights. You aren't even sure if he has the right, yet will blame him whether he uses that right or not, 'if he had one'.
The Gov told him she had things under control---but that's Bush's fault somehow. :confused:

kgeaux
09-08-2005, 06:23 PM
The asked for 24 hour delay I heard about was when Bush flew down there. The mayor, gov and Bush were together (on Air Force One?)and the mayor was saying you two have to get your act together. Bush and the gov went off and came back. Bush said he was ready to move but the gov wanted another 24 hours. What day did Bush visit?


His second trip down. Nagin had left the room, Bush met with Blanco alone and later reported the conversation to Nagin. Nagin was not happy with Blanco.

tipper
09-08-2005, 06:26 PM
Thanks - I just remember watching Nagin being interviewed about it.

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:27 PM
It doesn't take away his legal rights. You aren't even sure if he has the right, yet will blame him whether he uses that right or not, 'if he had one'.
The Gov told him she had things under control---but that's Bush's fault somehow. :confused:
From what I've read and posted, I feel confident he did, and am feeling more so as new information comes out. So, I'm operating from that belief. I'm using a qualifier because it's so complex. But, yes, I believe he could have based on what I know now.

And, yes, if the governor said she had things under control and didn't, it is his job to do what he can do. You can hold her accountable for saying she did when she didn't, but he has to take his accountability. A leader has to do that sometimes, and if he had that right, he should have used it. If he thought she was doing fine, why did he offer to take over? Even that's ridiculous. If he could have so little idea of what was going on that the governor could "fool" him, he doesn't deserve the job.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 06:29 PM
You didn't read the whole thread, did you?

Advance of Katrina? Advance? My biggest worry is after Katrina. If you don't know that, you really need to read the thread.

When people were lying there dying and the president apparently could have stopped it and didn't after days and days--if you think that's in advance of Katrina, I don't know how to help you.


And once we knew the people were dying and being raped and aid workers were getting shot at--I think that's when you stop saying, "Well, they should have been prepared" and you do what you can. If that's invoking a law that might cause political fallout and save lives, you do it. If he could do it, he had the obligation. And it looks like he did it Saturday, btw. Two different sources suggest that. So apparently he could.
In order to have the troops there to handle to problem that arose from the mayor allowing looting to occur in the first place, which rapdily snowballed into the rape & murder spree on the streets of the city, it would have required troops being in there BEFORE the storm hit. Because getting them in there on Tuesday & Wednesday was impossible. Why? Because the hurricane was still in the area, throwing tornadoes as far as Atlanta, until Wed morning. You can't move troops (or anything else) under those conditions. And the levees didn't break until Tuesday--up until that point, everyone thought NO had yet again dodge the bullet. And, to be blunt, I don't think they expected people to go absolutely ROAD WARRIOR within 24 hours to the point of opening fire on rescue helicopters and looting hospitals for drugs.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 06:31 PM
From what I've read and posted, I feel confident he did, and am feeling more so as new information comes out. So, I'm operating from that belief. I'm using a qualifier because it's so complex. But, yes, I believe he could have based on what I know now.

And, yes, if the governor said she had things under control and didn't, it is his job to do what he can do. You can hold her accountable for saying she did when she didn't, but he has to take his accountability. A leader has to do that sometimes, and if he had that right, he should have used it. If he thought she was doing fine, why did he offer to take over? Even that's ridiculous. If he could have so little idea of what was going on that the governor could "fool" him, he doesn't deserve the job.

Do you applaud Pres Bush for his quick deployment of the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers?

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:31 PM
In order to have the troops there to handle to problem that arose from the mayor allowing looting to occur in the first place, which rapdily snowballed into the rape & murder spree on the streets of the city, it would have required troops being in there BEFORE the storm hit. Because getting them in there on Tuesday & Wednesday was impossible. Why? Because the hurricane was still in the area, throwing tornadoes as far as Atlanta, until Wed morning. You can't move troops (or anything else) under those conditions. And the levees didn't break until Tuesday--up until that point, everyone thought NO had yet again dodge the bullet. And, to be blunt, I don't think they expected people to go absolutely ROAD WARRIOR within 24 hours to the point of opening fire on rescue helicopters and looting hospitals for drugs.
I don't think your information is accurate. I try to provide links when I can so I can judge for myself. Can you show me something that says it was impossible to get any troops to NO before Saturday?

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:34 PM
Do you applaud Pres Bush for his quick deployment of the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers?
Sorry, Tex. Not playing the game. I'm here to discuss the hurricane, not to police other people's posts or have mine policed, except by mods.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 06:35 PM
I don't think that's accurate.

I didn't say it did. This thread is about Bush. And since none of that changes his response or invalidates the question of why he did not act sooner, I won't address it here.

Right. He could, apparently, invoke IA. I know what he couldn't do. I want to know why he didn't do what he could do.
[quote]It's up to the Governor's electorate to threaten them with impeachment for failure to act/ineptness, not the President. [quote]
I the voters were a little busy dying being raped to start an impeachment rallying cry over something they were trying to survive.
Jesus, lady. You don't get it. It's called "Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't".
If he HAD invoked IA every Bush hater would be screaming Fascist and comparing it to the annexation Poland.
Since no other president in living memory has utilized it, why do you think he would have?
And if you think Clinton's office would have been any more efficient faced with something of this magnitude, you certainly didn't live through any of the hurricanes that struck during his presidency. Bureaucracy is the same, regardless of who is in office. That's why its bureaucracy.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 06:36 PM
Sorry, Tex. Not playing the game. I'm here to discuss the hurricane, not to police other people's posts or have mine policed, except by mods.

What? Bush deployed the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers DAY 1
within hours of the levee break. Do you applaud him for that? Why is that hard to answer? It's the topic of your thread!

kgeaux
09-08-2005, 06:38 PM
Right. All she had to do was ask. Which she quite posssibly did (New Mexico, White House didn't approve until Thursday). I understand that. She should have done a lot of things and not done others, and she is likely to blame for many things, many deaths. She could be the anti-Christ, secretly dancing gleefully in front of an altar because people were dying in the streets and areas of NO. That doesn't change whether or not Bush could have federalized the troops earlier.


We have no idea at what point Bush could have initiated the Insurrgance Act. You are basing your entire blame on the assumption that he should have and could have done it sooner. But you don't know that. We do not know that. I have not seen one link which states at which point in a natural disaster the president can push a legally elected governor out of the way and go over her head. I have seen links which say "justice department argued the case" which means the case was not proven prior to that. I have seen links which say his advisors did not have agreement on whether or not he could do this...the links clearly show that there wasn't a clear consensus on whether or not this could be done....I've seen links which say it's illegal for the federal government to take over the law enforcement activities in a state....and indeed, that's why Blanco says she didn't give control over to Bush. She did not want federalized troops performing law enforcement tasks in Louisiana.

You have made the assumption that you know at what point he could declare the Insurrection Act--before the people in the SuperDome were raped, before some died--but you have offered nothing to support your idea that Bush had any legal authority to do anything over the governor's head at that time. Do you have anything to back up your claim that he could have federalized troops earlier than he did? To show that all his advisors were telling him "Go" and none were disagreeing? To show that the justice department had made up its mind that using the Insurrection Act was OK?

We are hashing this out, but it seems to me that you have started with the "fact" that Bush is guilty, while the rest of us are saying "at what point does his guilt begin, if there is guilt?"

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:38 PM
If he HAD invoked IA every Bush hater would be screaming Fascist and comparing it to the annexation Poland. Maybe. Maybe there would be more of them around to scream.

I only know if he had invoked it, lives would very likely have been saved.

Since no other president in living memory has utilized it, why do you think he would have? Didn't his father?

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:42 PM
We are hashing this out, but it seems to me that you have started with the "fact" that Bush is guilty, while the rest of us are saying "at what point does his guilt begin, if there is guilt?"
Well, I'd been looking into it for a few days, and I'd found all that info. I think that's a good indication that he could have used it, so I'm going from there. It's possible he couldn't have but that's not what seems to be true.

And if there is something that says a president must wait to invoke IA, I'd like to see it. I've been looking and looking. It's hard to prove an negative and everything I've read doesn't specify that he has to wait.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 06:44 PM
I don't think your information is accurate. I try to provide links when I can so I can judge for myself. Can you show me something that says it was impossible to get any troops to NO before Saturday?
I don't have to provide a link. Ya know why? because its widely reported that the Governor of Louisiana didn't ask for any troops. Its a matter of public record. You can't move in troops that haven't been requested. And if you saw the footage of the traffic flowing out of the city, you would have noticed they were travelling on both the incoming and outgoing traffic lanes. There are only 4 ways in and out of NO. All but one over open water of some kind. All were jammed.

Many tourists were trapped in the city before the storm hit because air carriers were refusing to fly people out of the airport for fear of losing planes.
However, I have not heard anyone raise a stink over this.

Let me ask you a question--do you live the area? Are you familiar with the over land routes? Do you know the interstate and state highway systems that feed in and out of the city?

Pepper
09-08-2005, 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexMex
Do you applaud Pres Bush for his quick deployment of the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers?

Dara: Sorry, Tex. Not playing the game. I'm here to discuss the hurricane, not to police other people's posts or have mine policed, except by mods.
Dara, I think TexMex' question is a fair one, and not "game playing." It sticks to your topic about Bush's accountability in this mess.

BillyGG, you are RIGHT ON with your response about states rights. There is a Constitution to consider, along with Bush's oath to uphold it.

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:46 PM
What? Bush deployed the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers DAY 1
within hours of the levee break. Do you applaud him for that? Why is that hard to answer? It's the topic of your thread!
I really don't want to play into your fixation on me and I think that post does. I wouldn't have before you "All you post is this" and deeming me a Bush hater. Your posts are often more about me and my motivations that discussing the issue of thread. That this one follows the others, in which you accused me of starting this whole thread to bash Bush, which is untrue, but shows the assumptions you will make, tells me this isn't something you want to know.

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:48 PM
Dara, I think TexMex' question is a fair one, and not "game playing." It sticks to your topic about Bush's accountability in this mess.

BillyGG, you are RIGHT ON with your response about states rights. There is a Constitution to consider, along with Bush's oath to uphold it.
See above. This post comes directly after several about my "hatred" and several others that are very close to if not over the line to being personal attacks. I am trying to defuse that and because I feel there has been a constant thread of overly personal posts, I prefer to not answer.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 06:50 PM
I really don't want to play into your fixation on me and I think that post does. I wouldn't have before you "All you post is this" and deeming me a Bush hater. Your posts are often more about me and my motivations that discussing the issue of thread. That this one follows the others, in which you accused me of starting this whole thread to bash Bush, which is untrue, but shows the assumptions you will make, tells me this isn't something you want to know.

Who's fixated? Some posters seem 'fixated' on Bush.

Why can't you say if you applaud the POTUS for his quick deployment of the Army Engineers to fix the levee and the Coast Guard to save countless lives--Day 1?

Pepper
09-08-2005, 06:50 PM
See above. This post comes directly after several about my "hatred" and several others that are very close to if not over the line to being personal attacks. I am trying to defuse that and because I feel there has been a constant thread of overly personal posts, I prefer to not answer.

I respectfully disagree.

And since you want links, can you please point me to a link containing the language of the Insurgency Act you believe gave Bush the power to trump the Louisiana governor?

concernedperson
09-08-2005, 06:51 PM
What? Bush deployed the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers DAY 1
within hours of the levee break. Do you applaud him for that? Why is that hard to answer? It's the topic of your thread!

Do we know that Bush deployed anyone? The coast guard never asks permission for a rescue that I am aware of. That is their mission and it is ongoing wherever there is water. The coast guard acts immediately in a dire situation. Sort of like lifeguards, someone is drowning they get their butts out of the chair and move without congressional approval.

The Corps of Engineers has a mandate to act in an emergency to make repairs as expedient as possible. This also does not take congressional approval. Some agencies can react without anyone's approval except the military as far as I can see.

I was one calling for the military in New Orleans almost immediately. I tried to find my post on that but couldn't. Too many of them. But the point was I could see the deterioration of the city almost immediately. If I could see it why couldn't others? I am just a regular person with no training in emergency management, I just happen to know that city.

I cannot understand with a human heart why the governor has to go to committee in an emergency. I am serious about annexing Louisiana into Texas. The salvation of the state should not be in the control of those politicians, whether democrat or republican. They have shown absolutely no responsibility as regards human life.

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:51 PM
I don't have to provide a link. Ya know why? because its widely reported that the Governor of Louisiana didn't ask for any troops. Of course you don't have to. But I don't think the information is correct.

Its a matter of public record. You can't move in troops that haven't been requested. And when they weren't and people were dying, invoking IA would have gotten them there, wouldn't it.

Unless you think there was no way to get them there before Saturday.

Let me ask you a question--do you live the area? Are you familiar with the over land routes? Do you know the interstate and state highway systems that feed in and out of the city? Nope. But I watched the news and I know what the news said about what was open and passable and when.

I don't have to live there to know troops could have gotten there befor Saturday. If it was physically impossible then the governor not requesting them didn't cost lives. But I think it did. And I think Bush not invoking IA did, too.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 06:51 PM
Well, I'd been looking into it for a few days, and I'd found all that info. I think that's a good indication that he could have used it, so I'm going from there. It's possible he couldn't have but that's not what seems to be true.

And if there is something that says a president must wait to invoke IA, I'd like to see it. I've been looking and looking. It's hard to prove an negative and everything I've read doesn't specify that he has to wait.
Damned if he did
Damed if he didn't
Face it, you just want to stir a poop pot.
There is more than enough blame to go around, from the President down to the Governror to the mayor to the low-life thug who was raping 10 year olds in the dark of the Superdome, and the the people who stood around and watched him do it.
No one is going to come out of this smelling like a rose.

Dara
09-08-2005, 06:54 PM
I respectfully disagree.

And since you want links, can you please point me to a link containing the language of the Insurgency Act you believe gave Bush the power to trump the Louisiana governor?
Go ahead.

Here is one link (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.html). There were in other threads many other links to discussions posted. I started this thread to keep it all in one place.

kgeaux
09-08-2005, 06:55 PM
Well, I'd been looking into it for a few days, and I'd found all that info. I think that's a good indication that he could have used it, so I'm going from there. It's possible he couldn't have but that's not what seems to be true.

And if there is something that says a president must wait to invoke IA, I'd like to see it. I've been looking and looking. It's hard to prove an negative and everything I've read doesn't specify that he has to wait.

There you go! It's possible he couldn't. We have made progress! You will find that more people will want to continue to help hash this out if you are willing to admit that we just don't know that right now.

There is absolutely nothing that I can find showing that the IA has ever been invoked in a natural disaster. Nothing. I've looked, off and on, and found nothing. Hopefully someone will have better luck than me.

The impression I am getting is that it has never been done before. It has never ever had to have been invoked in direct opposition to the governor of a state. And that's why it took some time. Legalities did have to be argued out; Bush could not do something without a clear legal precedence. It is possible that had Bush not been so proactive in trying to find a way to get around Blanco, federal troops would still not be in New Orleans. That's why I'm not outraged YET at the delay for federal troops to show up.

I am outraged at the mayor and governor, because their culpability is clear. For the head of the Red Cross to go on national television and state that the state officials said not to bring food and water because they didn't want people to stay at the superdome, the guilt of those officials is clear. For Blanco to resist help when she so clearly needed it, her guilt is clear. Every death that occured because she withheld food and water, every death that occured because she would not accept help, she has total or partial guilt. Now later, if it is proven that Bush had the authority to invoke the IA on Wednesday afternoon, after things kind of settled down, then I will gladly, happily settle guilt on him, too.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:02 PM
Do we know that Bush deployed anyone? The coast guard never asks permission for a rescue that I am aware of. That is their mission and it is ongoing wherever there is water. The coast guard acts immediately in a dire situation. Sort of like lifeguards, someone is drowning they get their butts out of the chair and move without congressional approval.

The Corps of Engineers has a mandate to act in an emergency to make repairs as expedient as possible. This also does not take congressional approval. Some agencies can react without anyone's approval except the military as far as I can see.

I was one calling for the military in New Orleans almost immediately. I tried to find my post on that but couldn't. Too many of them. But the point was I could see the deterioration of the city almost immediately. If I could see it why couldn't others? I am just a regular person with no training in emergency management, I just happen to know that city.

I cannot understand with a human heart why the governor has to go to committee in an emergency. I am serious about annexing Louisiana into Texas. The salvation of the state should not be in the control of those politicians, whether democrat or republican. They have shown absolutely no responsibility as regards human life.
The Army Corps of Engineers is actually stationed in NO, at least the division that handles the locks and levees along the Mississippi. My great uncle, rip, used to be their commander general during the 1950s-60s.

Acting is one thing, but having the time and resources is another. The city may have had a couple days advance warning re Katrina, but they would have needed at least a week to get ready for something like this, maybe more. And so much of the warehoused supplies for that region were wiped out by the storm. Normally if Miss gets hit, supplies & equipment come in from LA and AL. If La gets hit, it comes in from Miss, or TX. If AL gets hit, stuff comes in from Miss, etc. But this thing oblierated three states. And you can't move troops or supplies during the storm itself, or even the day after, since the weather is usually bad for hundreds of square miles, and the roads have to be cleared.

Pepper
09-08-2005, 07:03 PM
There you go! It's possible he couldn't. We have made progress! You will find that more people will want to continue to help hash this out if you are willing to admit that we just don't know that right now.

There is absolutely nothing that I can find showing that the IA has ever been invoked in a natural disaster. Nothing. I've looked, off and on, and found nothing. Hopefully someone will have better luck than me.

The impression I am getting is that it has never been done before. It has never ever had to have been invoked in direct opposition to the governor of a state. And that's why it took some time. Legalities did have to be argued out; Bush could not do something without a clear legal precedence. It is possible that had Bush not been so proactive in trying to find a way to get around Blanco, federal troops would still not be in New Orleans. That's why I'm not outraged YET at the delay for federal troops to show up.

I am outraged at the mayor and governor, because their culpability is clear. For the head of the Red Cross to go on national television and state that the state officials said not to bring food and water because they didn't want people to stay at the superdome, the guilt of those officials is clear. For Blanco to resist help when she so clearly needed it, her guilt is clear. Every death that occured because she withheld food and water, every death that occured because she would not accept help, she has total or partial guilt. Now later, if it is proven that Bush had the authority to invoke the IA on Wednesday afternoon, after things kind of settled down, then I will gladly, happily settle guilt on him, too.

Exactly kgeaux! And the evacuees were told to bring their own food and water to the Superdome. What good is a shelter that can't provide food, water and toilets?

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:06 PM
Of course you don't have to. But I don't think the information is correct.

And when they weren't and people were dying, invoking IA would have gotten them there, wouldn't it.

Unless you think there was no way to get them there before Saturday.

Nope. But I watched the news and I know what the news said about what was open and passable and when.

I don't have to live there to know troops could have gotten there befor Saturday. If it was physically impossible then the governor not requesting them didn't cost lives. But I think it did. And I think Bush not invoking IA did, too.
So--your info re the news trumps my actual expereince riding out hurricanes in said city? And my expoerience with said government of said city? And my actual experince with the criminals in said city? And mya ctual expereince fleeing said city duing previous hurricanes?

hah.

Dara
09-08-2005, 07:07 PM
There you go! It's possible he couldn't. We have made progress! You will find that more people will want to continue to help hash this out if you are willing to admit that we just don't know that right now.
Oh, gee. That's just great. LOL. I'd be more willing to discuss with some people if they drop the personal "You're a hater" garbage. But we do what we can.

It's a remote possibility that he couldn't, I believe. It's being reported Bush did use it, and by Thursday seemed to be preparing for it (it's upthread, links and all.

There is absolutely nothing that I can find showing that the IA has ever been invoked in a natural disaster. Nothing. I've looked, off and on, and found nothing. Hopefully someone will have better luck than me. I can't either, but it has been used in civil unrest and that's what we had. IMO.

The impression I am getting is that it has never been done before. It has never ever had to have been invoked in direct opposition to the governor of a state. And that's why it took some time. Legalities did have to be argued out; Bush could not do something without a clear legal precedence. It is possible that had Bush not been so proactive in trying to find a way to get around Blanco, federal troops would still not be in New Orleans. That's why I'm not outraged YET at the delay for federal troops to show up. Proactive? I can feel pretty confident in saying when the report comes out, President Bush will not be known as the proactive one. Maybe if they spin hard. With Rove involved, it's possible, but imo inappropriate.
I am outraged at the mayor and governor, because their culpability is clear. For the head of the Red Cross to go on national television and state that the state officials said not to bring food and water because they didn't want people to stay at the superdome, the guilt of those officials is clear. For Blanco to resist help when she so clearly needed it, her guilt is clear. Every death that occured because she withheld food and water, every death that occured because she would not accept help, she has total or partial guilt. Now later, if it is proven that Bush had the authority to invoke the IA on Wednesday afternoon, after things kind of settled down, then I will gladly, happily settle guilt on him, too.
Outrage is appropriate, imo. I am outraged at everyone who didn't do the best they could. And Bush is in there, both with his gutting of FEMA and not invoking IA. Maybe other things. But everyone needs to be accoutable.
I believe Chertoff and Brown did an abysmal job, based on what we know. Bush praised them. I have concerns about that. They're still, as far as I know, in charge, and I worry about that.

Dara
09-08-2005, 07:10 PM
So--your info re the news trumps my actual expereince riding out hurricanes in said city? And my expoerience with said government of said city? And my actual experince with the criminals in said city? And mya ctual expereince fleeing said city duing previous hurricanes?

hah.
Well, if your experience says they couldn't get troops there until Saturday, possibly. Because I don't believe it could take that long, based on what I've seen and read. I think they could have gotten in days earlier.

Dara
09-08-2005, 07:11 PM
Damned if he did
Face it, you just want to stir a poop pot.

Untrue.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:12 PM
There you go! It's possible he couldn't. We have made progress! You will find that more people will want to continue to help hash this out if you are willing to admit that we just don't know that right now.

There is absolutely nothing that I can find showing that the IA has ever been invoked in a natural disaster. Nothing. I've looked, off and on, and found nothing. Hopefully someone will have better luck than me.

The impression I am getting is that it has never been done before. It has never ever had to have been invoked in direct opposition to the governor of a state. And that's why it took some time. Legalities did have to be argued out; Bush could not do something without a clear legal precedence. It is possible that had Bush not been so proactive in trying to find a way to get around Blanco, federal troops would still not be in New Orleans. That's why I'm not outraged YET at the delay for federal troops to show up.

I am outraged at the mayor and governor, because their culpability is clear. For the head of the Red Cross to go on national television and state that the state officials said not to bring food and water because they didn't want people to stay at the superdome, the guilt of those officials is clear. For Blanco to resist help when she so clearly needed it, her guilt is clear. Every death that occured because she withheld food and water, every death that occured because she would not accept help, she has total or partial guilt. Now later, if it is proven that Bush had the authority to invoke the IA on Wednesday afternoon, after things kind of settled down, then I will gladly, happily settle guilt on him, too.
Apparently previous experience using the Superdome as a hurricane shelter was less than great. Accoing to reports now coming out, rapes and murders occured during previous hurricanes, but were largely swept under the carpet. I dodn't see how any of that could be laid at the feet of the feeral government.
The city government's failure to provide for its citizens is notorious. I lived there 10 years and there was never any serious attempt to provide any sort of preparedness in the event of a major hurricane. Everyone was told to fill a bathtub, keep a lot of flashlight batteries, and stockpile canned foods and keep a first aid kit handy. That was about it.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 07:12 PM
Do we know that Bush deployed anyone? The coast guard never asks permission for a rescue that I am aware of. That is their mission and it is ongoing wherever there is water. The coast guard acts immediately in a dire situation. Sort of like lifeguards, someone is drowning they get their butts out of the chair and move without congressional approval.

The Corps of Engineers has a mandate to act in an emergency to make repairs as expedient as possible. This also does not take congressional approval. Some agencies can react without anyone's approval except the military as far as I can see.

I was one calling for the military in New Orleans almost immediately. I tried to find my post on that but couldn't. Too many of them. But the point was I could see the deterioration of the city almost immediately. If I could see it why couldn't others? I am just a regular person with no training in emergency management, I just happen to know that city.

I cannot understand with a human heart why the governor has to go to committee in an emergency. I am serious about annexing Louisiana into Texas. The salvation of the state should not be in the control of those politicians, whether democrat or republican. They have shown absolutely no responsibility as regards human life.


Hi concerned,

The U.S. Coast Guard is one of five branches of the US Armed Forces and the Army Corps of Engineers is another. I doubt they acted without Bush's knowledge. He's their Commander In Chief!

IMO this was such a huge natural disaster that all levels of government made mistakes. Bureaucracy is frustrating even on a good day much less during a crisis.

Met some more people today from NO--they plan to stay in Houston and find jobs. They put their kids in school this week. They still have shock all over their faces.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:13 PM
Untrue.
Prove it then.

Dara
09-08-2005, 07:16 PM
Prove it then.
I've proven it. I can't account for your attack. I've been discussing. I've provided links. I've posted in good faith. I've been attacked on a personal level.

And it happens every time I bring up Bush. Here. In other threads. Happens every time.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:17 PM
Well, if your experience says they couldn't get troops there until Saturday, possibly. Because I don't believe it could take that long, based on what I've seen and read. I think they could have gotten in days earlier.
You mean before they knew where the hurricane was going?
It hit very early Monday morning.
They started issuing the evacuation notices around Thursday.
It took someone I know 14 hours to make what was normally a 3 hour trip on Friday.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 07:20 PM
Apparently previous experience using the Superdome as a hurricane shelter was less than great. Accoing to reports now coming out, rapes and murders occured during previous hurricanes, but were largely swept under the carpet. I dodn't see how any of that could be laid at the feet of the feeral government.
The city government's failure to provide for its citizens is notorious. I lived there 10 years and there was never any serious attempt to provide any sort of preparedness in the event of a major hurricane. Everyone was told to fill a bathtub, keep a lot of flashlight batteries, and stockpile canned foods and keep a first aid kit handy. That was about it.

Hi billygoat

Unless you've lived through one it's hard to realize the total destruction.
NO didn't just have a cane...they had the cane AND the flood. Unprecedented
two natural disasters. Even with the best local planning many would die. But
the 'let's hope this one misses too' attitude in NO made things twice as bad.

Dara
09-08-2005, 07:21 PM
You mean before they knew where the hurricane was going?
It hit very early Monday morning.
They started issuing the evacuation notices around Thursday.
It took someone I know 14 hours to make what was normally a 3 hour trip on Friday.
No, I mean the troops who arrived Saturday. After the hurricane. When Bush reportedly invoked IA and got them there.

concernedperson
09-08-2005, 07:24 PM
Hi concerned,

The U.S. Coast Guard is one of five branches of the US Armed Forces and the Army Corps of Engineers is another. I doubt they acted without Bush's knowledge. He's their Commander In Chief!

IMO this was such a huge natural disaster that all levels of government made mistakes. Bureaucracy is frustrating even on a good day much less during a crisis.

Met some more people today from NO--they plan to stay in Houston and find jobs. They put their kids in school this week. They still have shock all over their faces.

Do you cry as much as me? I don't think I will ever get over this much less the actual victims. This is a tragedy at all levels.

I just don't want us to back to politics as usual. I want accountability for the people who lost their lives and the people who didn't react in a timely fashion. Too many days went by from the levees breaking to the help that was needed.This is America, we can act faster than that.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:26 PM
I've proven it. I can't account for your attack. I've been discussing. I've provided links. I've posted in good faith. I've been attacked on a personal level.

And it happens every time I bring up Bush. Here. In other threads. Happens every time.
My "attack" as you so lamely put it is because I have lived in New Orleans and saw this disaster getting ready to happen 20 years ago. I watched the local government pretty much insure it would happen through corruption, graft, ineptitude, and indifference. I left because I did not feel safe in that city, be the threat hurricanes or thugs. You seem pretty much intent on blaming one person for a disaster that had hundreds of architechs, stretching back to the time of FDR. Your frame of reference is so narrow its tunnel vision.

And if you think there's any difference between Bush, Clinton, Gore, or whoever the next candidate may be, you live in a dream world. They're interchangeable. You can pop off their heads and switch them around like barbie dolls and you pretty much get the same performance.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:30 PM
No, I mean the troops who arrived Saturday. After the hurricane. When Bush reportedly invoked IA and got them there.
Don't ask me, ask the governor.
And see above comments re the logisitics of large troop movements and the supply side needed to keep them in business. And the undamaged roads capable of handling heavy transport vehicles. And the one sizable land route into the city that doesn't involve traveling over bridges and causeways that were destroyed.

Dara
09-08-2005, 07:32 PM
You seem pretty much intent on blaming one person for a disaster that had hundreds of architechs, stretching back to the time of FDR. Your frame of reference is so narrow its tunnel vision. So, when I say everyone should be accountable, and I am focusing on just the later days, which is when I think Bush should have gotten troops there and regained order sooner, you think I am blaming him for the whole disaster?

Well, that's an interesting reading. Again, if what you get out of my posts is so different from what I actually write, I can't help you. I cam simply wish you would read what is there and not make such almost amusing but very offbase assumptions.

(psst...Everyone who criticizes Bush for this isn't a Bush hater. Some of them are Republicans)

TexMex
09-08-2005, 07:33 PM
Do you cry as much as me? I don't think I will ever get over this much less the actual victims. This is a tragedy at all levels.

I just don't want us to back to politics as usual. I want accountability for the people who lost their lives and the people who didn't react in a timely fashion. Too many days went by from the levees breaking to the help that was needed.This is America, we can act faster than that.


The family staying with us cries all day. They lost everything. Joel may have a job lined up in Lafayette and they plan to go check out housing there this weekend. Another couple I met today wants to stay here in the Houston area.

Dara
09-08-2005, 07:33 PM
Don't ask me, ask the governor. And see above comments re the logisitics of large troop movements and the supply side needed to keep them in business. And the undamaged roads capable of handling heavy transport vehicles. And the one sizable land route into the city that doesn't involve traveling over bridges and causeways that were destroyed. So, you're saying they couldn't have gotten there before Saturday? I'm just trying to get this clear.

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:34 PM
Hi billygoat

Unless you've lived through one it's hard to realize the total destruction.
NO didn't just have a cane...they had the cane AND the flood. Unprecedented
two natural disasters. Even with the best local planning many would die. But
the 'let's hope this one misses too' attitude in NO made things twice as bad.
I lived through 2 floods in New Orleans, one of which was hurricane related (Juan). I also rode out at least 3 hurricanes/near misses. It was a city of grasshoppers run by grasshoppers, not ants, if you get the Aesop's Fables reference.
I know 30 people in the area. I now know 19 are safe. I was shocked at how many of them (we're talking about educated professionals here) chose to stay and ride it out.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 07:35 PM
My "attack" as you so lamely put it is because I have lived in New Orleans and saw this disaster getting ready to happen 20 years ago. I watched the local government pretty much insure it would happen through corruption, graft, ineptitude, and indifference. I left because I did not feel safe in that city, be the threat hurricanes or thugs. You seem pretty much intent on blaming one person for a disaster that had hundreds of architechs, stretching back to the time of FDR. Your frame of reference is so narrow its tunnel vision.

And if you think there's any difference between Bush, Clinton, Gore, or whoever the next candidate may be, you live in a dream world. They're interchangeable. You can pop off their heads and switch them around like barbie dolls and you pretty much get the same performance.


Tell it billy.

TexMex
09-08-2005, 07:39 PM
I lived through 2 floods in New Orleans, one of which was hurricane related (Juan). I also rode out at least 3 hurricanes/near misses. It was a city of grasshoppers run by grasshoppers, not ants, if you get the Aesop's Fables reference.
I know 30 people in the area. I now know 19 are safe. I was shocked at how many of them (we're talking about educated professionals here) chose to stay and ride it out.


I know what you mean.....I've ridden out a couple here. But if a 4 or 5 comes this way---I'm gone. It's just unbelievable the damage they do.

Have many relatives in LA...they tell stories about the corruption at the city, Parish and state levels---bribes, grafting, incompetence...

Hope you hear from the rest of your friends soon...

KrazyKollector
09-08-2005, 07:41 PM
See above. This post comes directly after several about my "hatred" and several others that are very close to if not over the line to being personal attacks. I am trying to defuse that and because I feel there has been a constant thread of overly personal posts, I prefer to not answer.
In other words, let's not bring up anything the President did right because that's not what this thread wants to fixate upon.

Tex and Billy, I have Advil for when you need it.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

BillyGoatGruff
09-08-2005, 07:45 PM
So, you're saying they couldn't have gotten there before Saturday? I'm just trying to get this clear.
They could have, if they had been requested before hand.
There were already National Guard in NO, btw, before the storm. The governor had the power to call them out. I have no idea how many she mobilized. Possibly just the ones alreay on duty. Most National Guard not already deployed in Iraq are scattered throughout the state 3 weeks out of their month. You could actually see them in the news coverage, helping people get into the Superdome. However, civil authority was still in play for most of last week.
The city did not plan on this level of destruction. The police who were supposed to maintain order were also storm victims, worried about their homes and loved ones. This was something not taken into account for, apparently.
The fact the city ordered people into the Superdome and then did not have the necessary food or fresh water to feed them fo more than two days is beyond comprehension.
The situation was made even worse by the mayor allowing looting to occur, and ordering the police to not open fire on looters. What started as people trying to get fresh water and food turned into well--we know what it turned into.
NOPD started turning in their badges and walking off the job--something else not foreseen by the city leaders.

JBean
09-08-2005, 07:47 PM
My "attack" as you so lamely put it is because I have lived in New Orleans and saw this disaster getting ready to happen 20 years ago. I watched the local government pretty much insure it would happen through corruption, graft, ineptitude, and indifference. I left because I did not feel safe in that city, be the threat hurricanes or thugs. You seem pretty much intent on blaming one person for a disaster that had hundreds of architechs, stretching back to the time of FDR. Your frame of reference is so narrow its tunnel vision.

And if you think there's any difference between Bush, Clinton, Gore, or whoever the next candidate may be, you live in a dream world. They're interchangeable. You can pop off their heads and switch them around like barbie dolls and you pretty much get the same performance.
BIlly I am so impressed with your information I'm so glad you joined this discussion. I feel like the things i've been reading and seeing are all falling into place. thanks

TexMex
09-08-2005, 07:56 PM
In other words, let's not bring up anything the President did right because that's not what this thread wants to fixate upon.

Tex and Billy, I have Advil for when you need it.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Make mine a double KK.

Somehow asking if somebody applauds Bush for sending the USCG and Army Corps in within hours is wrong. The thread IS about Bush and his response to Katrina, verdad?

KrazyKollector
09-08-2005, 07:56 PM
My "attack" as you so lamely put it is because I have lived in New Orleans and saw this disaster getting ready to happen 20 years ago. I watched the local government pretty much insure it would happen through corruption, graft, ineptitude, and indifference. I left because I did not feel safe in that city, be the threat hurricanes or thugs. You seem pretty much intent on blaming one person for a disaster that had hundreds of architechs, stretching back to the time of FDR. Your frame of reference is so narrow its tunnel vision.

And if you think there's any difference between Bush, Clinton, Gore, or whoever the next candidate may be, you live in a dream world. They're interchangeable. You can pop off their heads and switch them around like barbie dolls and you pretty much get the same performance.
LOL--I got an image of one of those books where you can turn each third of the page to make different people and bodies etc.

I just think it's sad that there wasn't a better plan. I am so sad that there weren't more drills and following the plan they had.
I'm sad that so many died from something we all knew was going to happen.

I hope heads will roll but more importantly, I hope this makes it clear that every city and every state needs a disaster plan. We owe that, at the very least, to the people who died.

Pepper
09-08-2005, 08:01 PM
BIlly I am so impressed with your information I'm so glad you joined this discussion. I feel like the things i've been reading and seeing are all falling into place. thanks I'll second that!

JBean
09-08-2005, 08:01 PM
LOL--I got an image of one of those books where you can turn each third of the page to make different people and bodies etc.

I just think it's sad that there wasn't a better plan. I am so sad that there weren't more drills and following the plan they had.
I'm sad that so many died from something we all knew was going to happen.

I hope heads will roll but more importantly, I hope this makes it clear that every city and every state needs a disaster plan. We owe that, at the very least, to the people who died.I said before that prior to this i ASSumed my city /state had a good plan for my backside when we have our big EQ. But I'm finding that they donlt necessarily. this as all been eye opeing to me in terms of taking my own personal repsonsibility to KNOW to a new level.

concernedperson
09-08-2005, 08:13 PM
I know that I am just not a believer in what anyone tells me right now. I am looking at ways that protect my family. If you say white I might just question the grey.The great institution of the US is not looming on my head, the people are but the government isn't something to be proud of right now.

I am sorry that we have become bullies with far reaching attitudes. Especially when we let our own people die days after a major storm. There is no excuse for this, period. Whether it was federal or state and who will ultimately accept the justice, it wasn't right.I stand behind this as the ultimate of human abuse, a country with a multitude of resources and manpower and was impotent to react is just disgusting. Screw the beaurocracy. Just be people dammit.

less0305
09-08-2005, 08:23 PM
Wow, you go away for a few hours and ... well, just WOW.

Billy - I've read your post and you just seem to make so much sense and having actually lived there you would know more than many!! Thanks for your perspective. By the way, I've been called uninformed, callous, and insensitive (in those very words) because I didn't believe as some others here did. But that's okay....I still have my own thoughts and beliefs. So, hang in there!

KrazyKollector
09-08-2005, 08:45 PM
I'll second that!I third it!
It's good hearing from someone with an inside track.

sue1017
09-08-2005, 11:18 PM
In other words, let's not bring up anything the President did right because that's not what this thread wants to fixate upon.

Tex and Billy, I have Advil for when you need it.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I have been reading this thread all day. Trying my best to stay away b/c I don't play fair when it comes to politics.

But this comment I had reply to b/c it had me LMFAOROTF.:D

S

Melissa Marshall
09-09-2005, 12:30 AM
I have been reading this thread all day. Trying my best to stay away b/c I don't play fair when it comes to politics.

But this comment I had reply to b/c it had me LMFAOROTF.:D

S I have as well. I also applaud you BillyGG. Thanks for the insider information and all of your comments. And Tex I applaud Bush for sending in the USGC and The Army Corp but some people are to driven to see that.

BillyGoatGruff
09-09-2005, 01:03 AM
Wow, you go away for a few hours and ... well, just WOW.

Billy - I've read your post and you just seem to make so much sense and having actually lived there you would know more than many!! Thanks for your perspective. By the way, I've been called uninformed, callous, and insensitive (in those very words) because I didn't believe as some others here did. But that's okay....I still have my own thoughts and beliefs. So, hang in there!
If you live in that area, none of this is news. There have even been treatsies and essays written on the city's rather schizoid personality. One face is that of the care-free party animal, the others is that of the murderous thugs. Racism, poverty,reverse-racism, classism, ignorance, indifference, sloth, and greed all had a hand in making the dangerous stew the nation at large saw for the first time last week on their TVs, but which the natives of NO were all too aware of.
Most people think of/thought of New Orleans as a party city. Some place to go to have a good time and drink and enjoy themselves. Most rarely stepped outside the French Quarter. And few were aware of its crime rates, unless they happned to get mugged while visiting. While I lived there it was both hte Rape Capital and Murder Capital of the US. Which was rather sobering, given its relatively small population, compared to say Dallas or Atlanta or NYC. The very ugly truth behind the carnival mask must be a serious shock for most Americans, not to mention visitors from abroad.

Liz
09-09-2005, 06:31 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?hp&ex=1126324800&en=905e7a862e1c0023&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Published September 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

>>> continued at link

less0305
09-09-2005, 07:55 AM
One face is that of the care-free party animal. Most people think of/thought of New Orleans as a party city. Some place to go to have a good time and drink and enjoy themselves.

Billy - I only cut your post to save some space and to also just ask this specific question:

When the Mayor was questioned day before yesterday about the "mandatory" vacations he was sending the police officers on (many of which said they didn't want to leave their duties right now) and that would those officers be better utilized right now while it was still rescue operations - the Mayor said, and I quote, "This is a party city. Get over it!"

Do you have any idea - any clue what he could possible mean by that? What kind of a response what that? It absolutely floored me. I don't understand that mentality. I work for a municipality which went through two natural disasters, with loss of life I might add, and at no time during the immediacy of it would our Mayor have thought to send officers on mandatory 5 day vacations. Yes, it was horrendous. Yes, they need rest and food and sustinence. And yes, they need some peer counseling and maybe actual professional counseling. But I didn't understand what the "party city" part had to do with that.

kgeaux
09-09-2005, 08:23 AM
If you live in that area, none of this is news. There have even been treatsies and essays written on the city's rather schizoid personality. One face is that of the care-free party animal, the others is that of the murderous thugs. Racism, poverty,reverse-racism, classism, ignorance, indifference, sloth, and greed all had a hand in making the dangerous stew the nation at large saw for the first time last week on their TVs, but which the natives of NO were all too aware of.
Most people think of/thought of New Orleans as a party city. Some place to go to have a good time and drink and enjoy themselves. Most rarely stepped outside the French Quarter. And few were aware of its crime rates, unless they happned to get mugged while visiting. While I lived there it was both hte Rape Capital and Murder Capital of the US. Which was rather sobering, given its relatively small population, compared to say Dallas or Atlanta or NYC. The very ugly truth behind the carnival mask must be a serious shock for most Americans, not to mention visitors from abroad.

I know this is off topic for the thread, but I have to reply. I'm in Lafayette, and people are beginning to freak out a little about Mardi Gras......we're hoping our family friendly mardi gras, the 2nd largest Mardi Gras in the USA, does not get degraded down into the decadent New Orleans type Mardi Gras.

Speaking of which, a few gays/transvestites showed up and had their "Decadence Parade" in our downtown the other day....nobody too pleased about that. New Orleans may have been known as sin city, but Lafayette is not and does not want to be.

kgeaux
09-09-2005, 08:25 AM
Billy - I only cut your post to save some space and to also just ask this specific question:

When the Mayor was questioned day before yesterday about the "mandatory" vacations he was sending the police officers on (many of which said they didn't want to leave their duties right now) and that would those officers be better utilized right now while it was still rescue operations - the Mayor said, and I quote, "This is a party city. Get over it!"

Do you have any idea - any clue what he could possible mean by that? What kind of a response what that? It absolutely floored me. I don't understand that mentality. I work for a municipality which went through two natural disasters, with loss of life I might add, and at no time during the immediacy of it would our Mayor have thought to send officers on mandatory 5 day vacations. Yes, it was horrendous. Yes, they need rest and food and sustinence. And yes, they need some peer counseling and maybe actual professional counseling. But I didn't understand what the "party city" part had to do with that.

Les, he was sending them to Las Vegas....his comment was in answer to a question about whether it was wise to send them to that type of place to wind down. Las Vegas, truly, aint going to be nothin after what those cops are used to!

less0305
09-09-2005, 08:28 AM
kgeaux.....Thanks. I didn't reallly understand at first, but now that makes sense. :p

JBean
09-09-2005, 08:42 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?hp&ex=1126324800&en=905e7a862e1c0023&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Published September 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

>>> continued at linkThanks Liz. That was a telling article.

kgeaux
09-09-2005, 08:56 AM
Great link, Liz.

There's so much I'd like to copy and paste here! But I'll make do with this:

Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.

and


On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government had authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor's objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, administration officials said. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

Sums it up pretty nicely. She put on a power play. The Justice Department "concluded" to me means it took some time and debate to reach the conclusion; that explains to me why action could not be taken immediately to send in federalized troops. And the Bush administration was warned that this would have serious "legal & political implications." Legal there is important to me, cuz it means they weren't just looking out for their careers, they didn't want to cross any legal barriers.

DEPUTYDAWG
09-09-2005, 09:15 AM
Very interesting article, and explained the situation pretty well, IMO. If I am reading it correctly, Bush STILL needs the Governor's approval, or "surrendering control" before forces can come into a State to perform law enforcement duties (versus relief missions). And "decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials would have been required to deploy active-duty forces before law and order had been re-established." It then points out that they could not have gone into NO on Wednesday and Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

Well, I'm sure that the administration had very good reasons to have strong feelings that she would be resisting. I would doubt they would have come to that conclusion before having strong dialogue and interactions with her already, where she was showing her resistance and intentions.

And, the interesting quotes from Blanco near the end of the article. "I need everything you have got," but then continues to resist.

So, could Bush have done more? He needed a Governor that was willing to give up certain control before he could really direct forces in there, under that situation, and she was not willing to do so at that time.

JBean
09-09-2005, 09:53 AM
It just further confirms what we have been saying all along. All roads lead back to the Governor. No matter where we look or from what angle we do it, it's all about a powerful,prepared Governor.

DEPUTYDAWG
09-09-2005, 09:57 AM
It just further confirms what we have been saying all along. All roads lead back to the Governor. No matter where we look or from what angle we do it, it's all about a powerful,prepared Governor.

It sure has opened my eyes up more about my responsibility when voting for the Governor. But heck, this whole thing has opened up my eyes about what my local City government is doing, as well. :doh:

JBean
09-09-2005, 09:58 AM
It sure has opened my eyes up more about my responsibility when voting for the Governor. But heck, this whole thing has opened up my eyes about what my local City government is doing, as well. :doh:oh Amen to that. I am on the bandwagon.

kgeaux
09-09-2005, 11:13 AM
It sure has opened my eyes up more about my responsibility when voting for the Governor. But heck, this whole thing has opened up my eyes about what my local City government is doing, as well. :doh:


Amen, amen, amen, as my pastor used to say! It's now being reported what we knew all along: city officials deviated from the LEOP. Didn't follow their own rules about when to declare the evacuation or rules pertaining to how to get the people out. Combine that with a governor who deliberately takes steps to keep food and water away from those who had sought refuge in evacuation centers and a governor who feels as though her primary goal in this situation is to resist federal control instead of helping her constituents, well, you've got Louisiana and Katrina. A double, triple tragedy.

DEPUTYDAWG
09-09-2005, 11:22 AM
Amen, amen, amen, as my pastor used to say! It's now being reported what we knew all along: city officials deviated from the LEOP. Didn't follow their own rules about when to declare the evacuation or rules pertaining to how to get the people out. Combine that with a governor who deliberately takes steps to keep food and water away from those who had sought refuge in evacuation centers and a governor who feels as though her primary goal in this situation is to resist federal control instead of helping her constituents, well, you've got Louisiana and Katrina. A double, triple tragedy.

I have a question for you, since you live there. It was either you, or CP, that's mentioned previously that Blanco's a nice lady, etc. Could you have predicted this? That she would bungle this soooo badly, both in not knowing what the he** was going on, and...the resistance and power plays with the Feds, while saying to the Feds, "I need everything you've got" basically. I just can't fathom a person doing this. I just can't. I guess I wouldn't make a good politician, and I think I'm okay with that, if that's what it takes.

CP - would also like your take on my question as well, if you see this. Thanks.

ETA: Forgot which thread this was on, so it's a little O/T, and I apologize. if you want to answer somewhere else, just let me know where to look! I just appreciate your insight.

kgeaux
09-09-2005, 11:31 AM
I have a question for you, since you live there. It was either you, or CP, that's mentioned previously that Blanco's a nice lady, etc. Could you have predicted this? That she would bungle this soooo badly, both in not knowing what the he** was going on, and...the resistance and power plays with the Feds, while saying to the Feds, "I need everything you've got" basically. I just can't fathom a person doing this. I just can't. I guess I wouldn't make a good politician, and I think I'm okay with that, if that's what it takes.

CP - would also like your take on my question as well, if you see this. Thanks.

Kathleen Blanco is a nice lady. Very nice. Her family is a wonderful group of people; her grandchildren attend a local school with relatives of mine. I could have predicted that she would need "time to think" because I attended the debates between her and Bobby Jindal. He is a young, exceedingly brilliant young man who is Indian (India) in origin. Questions were asked, and for all of them, Kathleen's answers were slow and wishy-washy. Jindal's answers were quick, accurate and right to the point. It is an often repeated statement in Louisiana that Kathleen's husband is the real governor, and she's just his "front man."

As a point of interest, I will point out that Jindal, the Republican runner, was the overwhelming choice of younger voters who tend to be more liberal in their outlook. Overwhelmingly democratic, and yet they could see that Jindal was the better choice by far.

The power play, I think I would expect that from any Democratic governor at this time. I would think that they would think that Bush was making a political move to try to wrest control away from them. I think it would work the same way if the opposite parties were in these positions, too. It's just a symptom of the deep political division our nation is experiencing.

I never, not in a million years, would ever, ever have believed that Kathleen Blanco would deliberately withhold food and water from evacuees. And yet she did. I am so blown away by this that I cannot even begin to express how horrible this makes me feel.

concernedperson
09-09-2005, 11:47 AM
Kathleen Blanco is a nice lady. Very nice. Her family is a wonderful group of people; her grandchildren attend a local school with relatives of mine. I could have predicted that she would need "time to think" because I attended the debates between her and Bobby Jindal. He is a young, exceedingly brilliant young man who is Indian (India) in origin. Questions were asked, and for all of them, Kathleen's answers were slow and wishy-washy. Jindal's answers were quick, accurate and right to the point. It is an often repeated statement in Louisiana that Kathleen's husband is the real governor, and she's just his "front man."

As a point of interest, I will point out that Jindal, the Republican runner, was the overwhelming choice of younger voters who tend to be more liberal in their outlook. Overwhelmingly democratic, and yet they could see that Jindal was the better choice by far.

The power play, I think I would expect that from any Democratic governor at this time. I would think that they would think that Bush was making a political move to try to wrest control away from them. I think it would work the same way if the opposite parties were in these positions, too. It's just a symptom of the deep political division our nation is experiencing.

I never, not in a million years, would ever, ever have believed that Kathleen Blanco would deliberately withhold food and water from evacuees. And yet she did. I am so blown away by this that I cannot even begin to express how horrible this makes me feel.

OMG, I was thinking about how to respond and didn't really want to mention Ray. But since you did I have to agree. He has always been behind the scenes pushing the envelope. Several of your LE and politicians have been greatly influenced by him and, in part, owe their positions to his involvement.

She is/was a nice lady with a bunch of kids. Her oldest son was killed in an accident some years ago so she isn't inured to pain. I am in disbelief of her actions too even if someone was pushing her wouldn't you think she would just say....NO,NO,NO, people need water and food and we will get it to them. It is like I am watching someone else, I don't know her at all anymore. What could have happened? Does politics change your core? Or maybe that is her core and I was looking at the persona she wanted me to see!!!

DEPUTYDAWG
09-09-2005, 11:47 AM
Thanks! Interesting, indeed :)

DEPUTYDAWG
09-09-2005, 11:51 AM
OMG, I was thinking about how to respond and didn't really want to mention Ray. But since you did I have to agree. He has always been behind the scenes pushing the envelope. Several of your LE and politicians have been greatly influenced by him and, in part, owe their positions to his involvement.



Thanks, as well, CP! Real quick, who is Ray (I understand her husband), but why does he have so much influence? What's his story? (If you want to PM me, that's fine, as I know this is way off the Bush topic....)

concernedperson
09-09-2005, 12:01 PM
Thanks, as well, CP! Real quick, who is Ray (I understand her husband), but why does he have so much influence? What's his story? (If you want to PM me, that's fine, as I know this is way off the Bush topic....)

Ray Blanco started off as the Catholic High School football coach.He greatly enhanced their abilities as a football team. He exerted a lot, and I mean a lot of influence on every aspect of their lives. He brought them to the highest level a HS team can go and the town went wild with adulation. Then you have a whole bunch of young men who are almost cult like and grow up with asking his advice on everything. Nothing independent just what Coach says.

Blanco then went on to USL (University of Southwest Louisiana) and the boys followed. He rose to almost every position like a comet.Lots of groups of young people to influence. I imagine he likes to direct more than do.

less0305
09-09-2005, 12:07 PM
Kathleen Blanco is a nice lady. Very nice. Her family is a wonderful group of people; her grandchildren attend a local school with relatives of mine. I could have predicted that she would need "time to think" because I attended the debates between her and Bobby Jindal. He is a young, exceedingly brilliant young man who is Indian (India) in origin. Questions were asked, and for all of them, Kathleen's answers were slow and wishy-washy. Jindal's answers were quick, accurate and right to the point. It is an often repeated statement in Louisiana that Kathleen's husband is the real governor, and she's just his "front man."

As a point of interest, I will point out that Jindal, the Republican runner, was the overwhelming choice of younger voters who tend to be more liberal in their outlook. Overwhelmingly democratic, and yet they could see that Jindal was the better choice by far.

The power play, I think I would expect that from any Democratic governor at this time. I would think that they would think that Bush was making a political move to try to wrest control away from them. I think it would work the same way if the opposite parties were in these positions, too. It's just a symptom of the deep political division our nation is experiencing.

I never, not in a million years, would ever, ever have believed that Kathleen Blanco would deliberately withhold food and water from evacuees. And yet she did. I am so blown away by this that I cannot even begin to express how horrible this makes me feel.

I want to addess a couple things here - and I don't know how to do those cute little boxes where my comments come between your quotes.... :doh:

But anyway, Bobby Jindal? Haven't we seen him a lot of TV and now he gave an interview to something like the NYTimes regarding his reaction to everything? Is he still an elected official of something there - seems I see him and there's a (R) beside his name and then some type of city or parish name. I'm sorry. We don't have the same type structure you all have - or it isn't called the same. We have precincts - which are inside cities or counties - cities are inside counties - and the counties are inside the state. We don't have anything called parishes. Anyhooo, wasn't his remarks scathing remarks against the federal government in this and not against the Governor?

I also agree that regardless of what governor and where (and particular when the gov and prez are from different party lines) the power control would have happened. I'm sounding like a broken record, but even in drills for terrorism in various states the overriding theme is "the Governor must retain control of the state and should strongly resist being taken over by the Feds."

And my third thing was....I'm not sure Blanco did make all those decisions on her own. I think she was also listening to her senate and congress members - or some of them anyway, who I'm sure were calling her saying, "Do this...Don't do that." And if there's a hubby in the mix, well, that was one other voice in her head. We have had the same thing with some spouses. The person was elected, but the spouse at home told them how to think, speak, and feel. How many times did we hear that Nancy ran the Reagan show and Hillary ran the Clinton show?

oceanblueeyes
09-09-2005, 12:18 PM
Very interesting article, and explained the situation pretty well, IMO. If I am reading it correctly, Bush STILL needs the Governor's approval, or "surrendering control" before forces can come into a State to perform law enforcement duties (versus relief missions). And "decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials would have been required to deploy active-duty forces before law and order had been re-established." It then points out that they could not have gone into NO on Wednesday and Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

Well, I'm sure that the administration had very good reasons to have strong feelings that she would be resisting. I would doubt they would have come to that conclusion before having strong dialogue and interactions with her already, where she was showing her resistance and intentions.

And, the interesting quotes from Blanco near the end of the article. "I need everything you have got," but then continues to resist.

So, could Bush have done more? He needed a Governor that was willing to give up certain control before he could really direct forces in there, under that situation, and she was not willing to do so at that time.

Didn't she say she wanted the NO police department and the Louisiana NG to be in command of NO? I can understand that and it still must be the way it is today as
Eddie Compass (NOPD) said just last night that he and the LA NG are the ones in control of all decisions that concern security and police matters. The other agencies are only assisting them, not ruling them and taking over.

I can understand that.. it is their city, their state. The Feds dont have to be in charge of everything to assist even though that is usually what they desire.

IMO

Ocean

tybee204
09-09-2005, 12:48 PM
Appeals for troops unheeded for days

Blanco, Bush disagreed on authority over forces

By Jan Moller and Robert Travis Scott
Capital Bureau

BATON ROUGE - As it became clear last week that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina required far more help than state and local authorities could provide, Gov. Kathleen Blanco and other state officials began pleading for more help from the federal government.

Blanco administration officials said the governor spoke twice to Bush - once Sunday morning, in the hours before Katrina made landfall, and again Wednesday morning after the storm. In both telephone conversations, according to Blanco and her senior aides, the governor asked Bush for increased federal help.

"I asked him to send me everything he's got," Blanco said of their first conversation,. In their second conversation, Blanco was more specific, saying the state needed 40,000 troops to restore order and complete the search and rescue mission.

But state officials said the governor didn't ask directly for active-duty troops. Bottcher said the governor was prepared to accept any combination of Guards members and regular Army troops, as long as there were enough numbers to calm the city and complete the rescue effort.
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html

DEPUTYDAWG
09-09-2005, 01:19 PM
Didn't she say she wanted the NO police department and the Louisiana NG to be in command of NO? I can understand that and it still must be the way it is today as
Eddie Compass (NOPD) said just last night that he and the LA NG are the ones in control of all decisions that concern security and police matters. The other agencies are only assisting them, not ruling them and taking over.

I can understand that.. it is their city, their state. The Feds dont have to be in charge of everything to assist even though that is usually what they desire.

IMO

Ocean

Those are good points, Ocean, IMO. And, from my understanding of how the different levels are supposed to work, the way it is supposed to be. The State retains control of almost everything, unless the Gov decides to relinquish the control. How our government is set up, I guess.

So, could Bush have done more?, if the Gov didn't relinquish the control, which appears to be the case here....

Pepper
09-09-2005, 01:19 PM
I think we have a "he said, she said" situation.

kgeaux
09-09-2005, 02:34 PM
Didn't she say she wanted the NO police department and the Louisiana NG to be in command of NO? I can understand that and it still must be the way it is today as
Eddie Compass (NOPD) said just last night that he and the LA NG are the ones in control of all decisions that concern security and police matters. The other agencies are only assisting them, not ruling them and taking over.

I can understand that.. it is their city, their state. The Feds dont have to be in charge of everything to assist even though that is usually what they desire.

IMO

Ocean

Yes. That's it. But they weren't controlling the situation in the beginning. Bush was wanting to "federalize" national guard troops, which would cut through a lot of layers of government and get those troops in there quickly. The downside of that would be that according to the rules of the Insurrection Act, these federalized troops would then have law enforcement abilities/responsibilities within Louisiana. Law enforcement would come along with federalization and could not be left out of the duties of the federalized troops. That is why Blanco resisted and refused and asked for more time. She did not want to relinquish her control.

I understand her position to a point, and that is that when people were being shot, raped, dropping dead from dehydration and heat stroke, and she could not quell the lawlessness, I believe she needed to do whatever was necessary to preserve life.....and she did not.

BillyGoatGruff
09-09-2005, 05:52 PM
Billy - I only cut your post to save some space and to also just ask this specific question:

When the Mayor was questioned day before yesterday about the "mandatory" vacations he was sending the police officers on (many of which said they didn't want to leave their duties right now) and that would those officers be better utilized right now while it was still rescue operations - the Mayor said, and I quote, "This is a party city. Get over it!"

Do you have any idea - any clue what he could possible mean by that? What kind of a response what that? It absolutely floored me. I don't understand that mentality. I work for a municipality which went through two natural disasters, with loss of life I might add, and at no time during the immediacy of it would our Mayor have thought to send officers on mandatory 5 day vacations. Yes, it was horrendous. Yes, they need rest and food and sustinence. And yes, they need some peer counseling and maybe actual professional counseling. But I didn't understand what the "party city" part had to do with that.
All I can say is that Mayor Nagin that IMO is an incompetent jackass. His decision to allow looting and demanding that LE not respond with force when it began to escalate pretty much proves that. His swearing out the President on the radio and this rather inappropriate comment just bolster my opinion.
the late Mayor Dutch Morial would NEVER have allowed the looting, as he was a former MP and knew the reprecussions that would have.
A genuinely sane/intelligent plan would have had LE entering the stores, "requisitioning" food, water & medical supplies and taking it back to the Dome and later the Convention Center to be distributed under armed gaurd. And the first time anyone tried to beat their way to the head of the line, they'd get a bullet in the leg. The second attempt would get one between the eyes.
Nagin's political career is over, thank goodness. WHY this was not done is anyone's guess.

BillyGoatGruff
09-09-2005, 05:56 PM
I have a question for you, since you live there. It was either you, or CP, that's mentioned previously that Blanco's a nice lady, etc. Could you have predicted this? That she would bungle this soooo badly, both in not knowing what the he** was going on, and...the resistance and power plays with the Feds, while saying to the Feds, "I need everything you've got" basically. I just can't fathom a person doing this. I just can't. I guess I wouldn't make a good politician, and I think I'm okay with that, if that's what it takes.

CP - would also like your take on my question as well, if you see this. Thanks.

ETA: Forgot which thread this was on, so it's a little O/T, and I apologize. if you want to answer somewhere else, just let me know where to look! I just appreciate your insight.
Being nice doesn't mean you can't be incompetent in your job. Often they go hand in hand.

DEPUTYDAWG
09-09-2005, 05:58 PM
Being nice doesn't mean you can't be incompetent in your job. Often they go hand in hand.

Oh, so true, so true. I just wondered more about the "person" herself....

BillyGoatGruff
09-09-2005, 06:00 PM
Ray Blanco started off as the Catholic High School football coach.He greatly enhanced their abilities as a football team. He exerted a lot, and I mean a lot of influence on every aspect of their lives. He brought them to the highest level a HS team can go and the town went wild with adulation. Then you have a whole bunch of young men who are almost cult like and grow up with asking his advice on everything. Nothing independent just what Coach says.

Blanco then went on to USL (University of Southwest Louisiana) and the boys followed. He rose to almost every position like a comet.Lots of groups of young people to influence. I imagine he likes to direct more than do.
Oh, so THAT'S who her husband it. I wondered who this woman was in order to get elected governor, as I had never heard of her before when I lived in the state.

concernedperson
09-09-2005, 06:01 PM
Being nice doesn't mean you can't be incompetent in your job. Often they go hand in hand.

Well, that is becoming extremely apparent.The problem is the web these politicians weave. They get a little taste and want the whole pie. Usually the large pie eaters want to maintain their pie for periods of time long after their usefullness is over.

JBean
09-09-2005, 06:07 PM
All I can say is that Mayor Nagin that IMO is an incompetent jackass. His decision to allow looting and demanding that LE not respond with force when it began to escalate pretty much proves that. His swearing out the President on the radio and this rather inappropriate comment just bolster my opinion.
the late Mayor Dutch Morial would NEVER have allowed the looting, as he was a former MP and knew the reprecussions that would have.
A genuinely sane/intelligent plan would have had LE entering the stores, "requisitioning" food, water & medical supplies and taking it back to the Dome and later the Convention Center to be distributed under armed gaurd. And the first time anyone tried to beat their way to the head of the line, they'd get a bullet in the leg. The second attempt would get one between the eyes.
Nagin's political career is over, thank goodness. WHY this was not done is anyone's guess.Billy I'm writing you in on the next election. You are impressive.

cynder
09-09-2005, 06:49 PM
All I can say is that Mayor Nagin that IMO is an incompetent jackass. His decision to allow looting and demanding that LE not respond with force when it began to escalate pretty much proves that. His swearing out the President on the radio and this rather inappropriate comment just bolster my opinion.
the late Mayor Dutch Morial would NEVER have allowed the looting, as he was a former MP and knew the reprecussions that would have.
A genuinely sane/intelligent plan would have had LE entering the stores, "requisitioning" food, water & medical supplies and taking it back to the Dome and later the Convention Center to be distributed under armed gaurd. And the first time anyone tried to beat their way to the head of the line, they'd get a bullet in the leg. The second attempt would get one between the eyes.
Nagin's political career is over, thank goodness. WHY this was not done is anyone's guess.
That would have worked just fine IF LE had
A - Adequate Undamaged Vehicles (Truck and Boats) and Gas For Them
B - A Full Contingent Of 1400 Officer On Duty AND Support From Additional LE (more than half the officers were gone, evacuated, couldn't get to work etc)
C - Adequate Working Satellite Phone System AND Batteries (radios and cell phones did not work - no towers)
D - A Command Center That Wasn't Flooded
E - A Jail That Wasn't Flooded
Lets stop and think logically - not emotionally. This was a city 80% under water, no communications, no electricity (can't do something as simple as pump gas without electricity), no boats and most of their vehicles under water or inaccessible. About half the full force was gone, drowned, unable to get to work etc. They had no working communication, no ability to call back-up, NOTHING. It sounds really good when people say the should have handled the situation different, stopped the looting etc. Yeah, they might have killed a few bad guys - but collateral damage could have easily been mothers with kids (or even some kids). How would we have responded to THAT? And if a few dozen officers got killed by angry mobs, would that have been better? I think it is a miracle that they held the city together at all and NO-ONE GOT KILLED - not one officer and not one citizen (at the hands of an officer).
The real problem here is that it took 48 hours to get the 1st Nat'l Guard Troops to NO and 4 days to get a real "force" in place with essential communication and vehicles.
WHY? Because the closest (and best) vehicles, troops, and satellite communcation systems were IN IRAQ.
here's what the Nat'l Guard Leaders themselves are saying - the first skelton forces took 2 days to arrive - and their equipment even LONGER
" Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day at most of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.
Blum said that to replace those units' command and control equipment, he dispatched personnel from Guard division headquarters from Kansas and Minnesota shortly after the storm struck."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/sep/09/090904047.html
I realize NO is not a perfect city with a perfect police force, but for heaven's sake, pie-in-the-sky "martial law" scenarios of managing a hot,angry, hungry, out of control mob of 30k at the convention center and 35-40k at the Superdome plus roving gangs of armed criminals and jonesing drug addicts with a few hundred underequipped officers are just empty rhetoric.
Ok, there was looting and the cops LET it happen - reality is all of the items in those flooded stores would have been declared a total loss on insurance - looting or no looting and would have been dumped in the trash anyway - why NOT let people take them if it means no-one gets killed? Sometimes law and order has to be loosly applied to save lives - and that is the goal isn't it?

less0305
09-09-2005, 07:31 PM
That would have worked just fine IF LE had
A - Adequate Undamaged Vehicles (Truck and Boats) and Gas For Them
B - A Full Contingent Of 1400 Officer On Duty AND Support From Additional LE (more than half the officers were gone, evacuated, couldn't get to work etc)
C - Adequate Working Satellite Phone System AND Batteries (radios and cell phones did not work - no towers)
D - A Command Center That Wasn't Flooded
E - A Jail That Wasn't Flooded
Lets stop and think logically - not emotionally. This was a city 80% under water, no communications, no electricity (can't do something as simple as pump gas without electricity), no boats and most of their vehicles under water or inaccessible. About half the full force was gone, drowned, unable to get to work etc. They had no working communication, no ability to call back-up, NOTHING. It sounds really good when people say the should have handled the situation different, stopped the looting etc. Yeah, they might have killed a few bad guys - but collateral damage could have easily been mothers with kids (or even some kids). How would we have responded to THAT? And if a few dozen officers got killed by angry mobs, would that have been better? I think it is a miracle that they held the city together at all and NO-ONE GOT KILLED - not one officer and not one citizen (at the hands of an officer).
The real problem here is that it took 48 hours to get the 1st Nat'l Guard Troops to NO and 4 days to get a real "force" in place with essential communication and vehicles.
WHY? Because the closest (and best) vehicles, troops, and satellite communcation systems were IN IRAQ.
here's what the Nat'l Guard Leaders themselves are saying - the first skelton forces took 2 days to arrive - and their equipment even LONGER
" Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day at most of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.
Blum said that to replace those units' command and control equipment, he dispatched personnel from Guard division headquarters from Kansas and Minnesota shortly after the storm struck."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/sep/09/090904047.html
I realize NO is not a perfect city with a perfect police force, but for heaven's sake, pie-in-the-sky "martial law" scenarios of managing a hot,angry, hungry, out of control mob of 30k at the convention center and 35-40k at the Superdome plus roving gangs of armed criminals and jonesing drug addicts with a few hundred underequipped officers are just empty rhetoric.
Ok, there was looting and the cops LET it happen - reality is all of the items in those flooded stores would have been declared a total loss on insurance - looting or no looting and would have been dumped in the trash anyway - why NOT let people take them if it means no-one gets killed? Sometimes law and order has to be loosly applied to save lives - and that is the goal isn't it?

And all that sounds like there was no CITY plan for a flood. Why would you not put some of your vehicles on higher ground? Why would you not have put your public works vehicles on higher ground - to be used to carry supplies to those places? Why would you not have an adequate supply of batteries for your walkies and radios charged and ready to go? Why would you not have allowed the federalization of the troops so that there wasn't that day of political wrangling going on to delay that? Why would you not have supplies to feed people at the places you deem shelters and urge people to go?

I've lived on a military base where there were tornado warnings daily - DAILY - and every single warning issued by the base we had to leave our home and drive to the "safe" building for our neighborhood. Now, in 18 months not a single tornado touched down....but we knew it could - and so did the military - so staying at home was NOT an option - you went by order of the military. It's called safeguarding against something you know has a good chance to happen. N.O. is below sea level. Flooding has a good chance of happening, so why was there no CITY plan for supplies at the locations you tell people to go to? Why do you not pull your city fleet to higher ground? Why did you not have extra radios, batteries, generators charged and ready to go? This I just don't understand. Even if you take the hurricane out of the picture and just looked at how unprepared the city was for a flood - it's absolutely amazing. Just suppose something happened and there was a breach in the levee without the hurricane even happening...they were unprepared for flooding. And they live there with those levees every single day and have for 75 years. With just a levee break there would be no warning. Now put the hurricane back in....they had 5 days warning that a hurricane was coming and that increased the likelihood of a breach in the levees and flooding. They weren't prepared for the least case scenario, much less the worst case scenario.

Liz
09-09-2005, 07:53 PM
And all that sounds like there was no CITY plan for a flood.


Well said, in one sentence, less!

BillyGoatGruff
09-09-2005, 08:56 PM
That would have worked just fine IF LE had
A - Adequate Undamaged Vehicles (Truck and Boats) and Gas For Them
B - A Full Contingent Of 1400 Officer On Duty AND Support From Additional LE (more than half the officers were gone, evacuated, couldn't get to work etc)
C - Adequate Working Satellite Phone System AND Batteries (radios and cell phones did not work - no towers)
D - A Command Center That Wasn't Flooded
E - A Jail That Wasn't Flooded
Lets stop and think logically - not emotionally. This was a city 80% under water, no communications, no electricity (can't do something as simple as pump gas without electricity), no boats and most of their vehicles under water or inaccessible. About half the full force was gone, drowned, unable to get to work etc. They had no working communication, no ability to call back-up, NOTHING. It sounds really good when people say the should have handled the situation different, stopped the looting etc. Yeah, they might have killed a few bad guys - but collateral damage could have easily been mothers with kids (or even some kids). How would we have responded to THAT? And if a few dozen officers got killed by angry mobs, would that have been better? I think it is a miracle that they held the city together at all and NO-ONE GOT KILLED - not one officer and not one citizen (at the hands of an officer).
The real problem here is that it took 48 hours to get the 1st Nat'l Guard Troops to NO and 4 days to get a real "force" in place with essential communication and vehicles.
WHY? Because the closest (and best) vehicles, troops, and satellite communcation systems were IN IRAQ.
here's what the Nat'l Guard Leaders themselves are saying - the first skelton forces took 2 days to arrive - and their equipment even LONGER
" Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day at most of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.
Blum said that to replace those units' command and control equipment, he dispatched personnel from Guard division headquarters from Kansas and Minnesota shortly after the storm struck."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/sep/09/090904047.html
I realize NO is not a perfect city with a perfect police force, but for heaven's sake, pie-in-the-sky "martial law" scenarios of managing a hot,angry, hungry, out of control mob of 30k at the convention center and 35-40k at the Superdome plus roving gangs of armed criminals and jonesing drug addicts with a few hundred underequipped officers are just empty rhetoric.
Ok, there was looting and the cops LET it happen - reality is all of the items in those flooded stores would have been declared a total loss on insurance - looting or no looting and would have been dumped in the trash anyway - why NOT let people take them if it means no-one gets killed? Sometimes law and order has to be loosly applied to save lives - and that is the goal isn't it?It was up to the city and its leaders to prepare and drill its LE and other branches of local support on civil emergency response. Which does not seem to have been done, given the utter chaos that closely followed the storm. It woudl seem all the crowd management training they had was regards Mardi Gras and Jazz Fest. It boggles the mind that a city built under sea level in a amn BOWL--and which has flooded several times within livng memory--would not train its LE and other emergency response personnel and drill them for such a catastrophe. But they didn't.

BillyGoatGruff
09-09-2005, 08:59 PM
And all that sounds like there was no CITY plan for a flood. Why would you not put some of your vehicles on higher ground? Why would you not have put your public works vehicles on higher ground - to be used to carry supplies to those places? Why would you not have an adequate supply of batteries for your walkies and radios charged and ready to go? Why would you not have allowed the federalization of the troops so that there wasn't that day of political wrangling going on to delay that? Why would you not have supplies to feed people at the places you deem shelters and urge people to go?

I've lived on a military base where there were tornado warnings daily - DAILY - and every single warning issued by the base we had to leave our home and drive to the "safe" building for our neighborhood. Now, in 18 months not a single tornado touched down....but we knew it could - and so did the military - so staying at home was NOT an option - you went by order of the military. It's called safeguarding against something you know has a good chance to happen. N.O. is below sea level. Flooding has a good chance of happening, so why was there no CITY plan for supplies at the locations you tell people to go to? Why do you not pull your city fleet to higher ground? Why did you not have extra radios, batteries, generators charged and ready to go? This I just don't understand. Even if you take the hurricane out of the picture and just looked at how unprepared the city was for a flood - it's absolutely amazing. Just suppose something happened and there was a breach in the levee without the hurricane even happening...they were unprepared for flooding. And they live there with those levees every single day and have for 75 years. With just a levee break there would be no warning. Now put the hurricane back in....they had 5 days warning that a hurricane was coming and that increased the likelihood of a breach in the levees and flooding. They weren't prepared for the least case scenario, much less the worst case scenario.
That pretty much sums it up. Why was the city so woefully prepared for ANYTHING going wrong?

Liz
09-09-2005, 09:08 PM
I couldn't believe when I heard they (PD) had (only) three boats --- two of which didn't run!

concernedperson
09-09-2005, 09:23 PM
Don't rely on Louisiana to bail you out unless you are part and parcel to the machine.This is the most corrupt state ever and don't let them influence you with the free school books that have been available for decades.They actually believe this will redeem them.

oceanblueeyes
09-09-2005, 10:23 PM
Those are good points, Ocean, IMO. And, from my understanding of how the different levels are supposed to work, the way it is supposed to be. The State retains control of almost everything, unless the Gov decides to relinquish the control. How our government is set up, I guess.

So, could Bush have done more?, if the Gov didn't relinquish the control, which appears to be the case here....

In my mind DD, yes he could have. She asked for "assistance"..... fighting over who had control was just wasting time. I mean her state still maintains control to this day and they are NOW covered up with assistance. So imo, this assistance should/could have been done quickly due to the severe conditions there. They are able to do it now but they weren't able to assist then?

Even in Mississippi Trent Lott after trying to give the president and federal government glowing compliments the first week finally had to expose the truth about FEMA. He told all of the volunteers and other organizations that had waited and waited to just bypass FEMA. How sad is that?

I had three friends that went to Biloxi, Mississippi this past weekend to give assistance. There were survivors there that had seen no one,many were sick and not even a band-aid in sight, not the Red Cross, FEMA....... So who is Bush going to blame that on? Haley Barber? I dont think so, HB had his ducks in a row, the feds just followed up at a snail's pace. So it wasnt just NOLA but MS too that suffered delayed reactions.

So imo, the government for some unknown reason just sat there, twiddling their thumbs while people died everyday they waited.

This is one of the reasons that State LE hates to call the FBI in as the FBI wants to take over full control and it isn't even their case. They seem to have a ego thing about "assisting", they are all about being in charge. I can understand why the Governor refused to let that happen.

I cannot understand why it took the feds so long to get MS or LA.......arent we a country that boast that our military is ready at a moments notice?

While some here say that NO is mad with the mayor and the Governor there are many from LA that blame the man right at the very top of our government. I have never seen so many Republicans jumping ship as I have seen in the past 2 weeks. This isnt going to go away.

IMO

Ocean

concernedperson
09-09-2005, 10:26 PM
I agee. Ocean, it isn't going to away.

less0305
09-09-2005, 10:35 PM
[QUOTE=This isnt going to go away.


Ocean[/QUOTE]

I hope it doesn't go away until the head of the STATE Homeland Security is in the unemployment line beside Brown (if most people get their wish and he's sent there). The STATE Homeland Security guy was just as inept as anyone else in this disaster - he sent away the very sustinance that would have kept some people alive and in better condition - the Red Cross.