Could Bush Have Done More

[JBean]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


Contactenise 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]

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]

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]

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, coming from Bush himself:

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] 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.
[/font]

 

[Dara]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.