Cynical Nation

Come on Barry :) Technically you have a point, but practically you dont. "Topped" or "breached" does not matter. He was warned that there may be a serious problem and then he came out and said to the American people that noone could have predicted what happened. Sorry, not only did he lie, but he is in fact a pathological liar. I dont trust anything he says. And the majority of Americans do not either.

Barry, you don't have a point, you have an excuse...

Here's a definition for breach I'm sure your Conservataive Dictionary won't include: A breaking of waters, as over a vessel or a coastal defence; the waters themselves; surge; surf.

(italics mine)

SO BORED.

Ok fellas, all the semantics and such aside, what exactly did Bush do wrong during Katrina? Was a mandatory evacuation not put in place?

In fact, if you want to talk about the federal response, then I have some serious questions for you:

Was FEMA's response slower than it has been for any other disastor? Andrew, for example.

Were the amount of people who died in Katrina greater than or less than previous disastors in recent American history? Proportionately speaking, of course.

What was the difference in the amount of people who died in Lousiana VS those who died in the neighboring states that were also effected, if to a lesser extent?

These may be morbid questions, but I'm sick of political posturing about a hurricane. If you want to make accusations, then do it right. Get me the information necessary to answer those questions, and then we'll talk about whether or not Bush was fiddling while Rome burned.

Adam,
The problem with Katrina was more than obvious. There were thousands of people in the convention center without food and water for days!!! Bush did not even bother to interrupt his vacation until 2-3 days AFTER the disaster. This is an incompetent and corrupt administration. If supplies had been sent earlier, many people would be alive today. How could you defend the administration on that?

I do have a point, Bob. The primary definition from the American Heritage dictionary is:

1. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
2. A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.

We know the president meant this definition rather than yours becuase, well, because that's what happened.

And I'm sorry, Blue, but it is an important distinction. A destroyed levee is much more serious than a levee that overflows.

The problem with Katrina was more than obvious. There were thousands of people in the convention center without food and water for days!!! Bush did not even bother to interrupt his vacation until 2-3 days AFTER the disaster. This is an incompetent and corrupt administration. If supplies had been sent earlier, many people would be alive today. How could you defend the administration on that?

Remember how I said, answer my questions with evidence and then we'll talk?

I don't care about this rhetoric you're regurgitating at me, Blue. Get me some context. Put up or shut up, as they say.

Adam,
What evidence do you need? Were you watching TV when that happened? Did you see the scenes at the Convention Center that were reminiscent of place in a third word country? Do you recall that the president did not even bother to disrupt his vacation for the first 2-3 days. Do you recall that his famous VP continued his vacation for around 10 days after that happened? What evidence do you need more than that? You had a federal goverment that could not send basic supplies to women and childrent dying from thirst in a convention center, and an indifferent president and VP. So, if you can explain that, go ahead. Put up or shut up, as you would say :)

My problem with the whole thing is that breached or topped, it doesn't appear that a whole lot was done very quickly. I think I can say that without raising any eyebrows. There was failure on monumental levels at all branches of government. The only ones who seemed to even kind of know what they were doing was the Coast Guard. And frankly, if you're thinking topping of the levees; you know you're going to have to act fast. And if you fear the storm is going to be huge (Cat 5 is kind of big), how much of a stretch of the imagination is it to take it to the next possible outcome and think holy crap, what if they breach. Maybe we should be prepared for that?

K, your point is well taken, and I don't think anyone here would dispute it. Once again, however, I have to ask: isn't there enough about this administration to legitimately criticize without having to manufacture another "lie" that didn't actually happen? That's my issue here.

But Barry,
I really dont think anyone manufactured a lie that did not happen. Bush attempted to defend his indifference and incompetence in dealing with Katrina by implying that noone could have predicted what happened. He was clearly lying, as he had been warned big-time. I really dont think the precise words he used matter. He overall message was a lie, or at the very least, extermely misleading.

> I really dont think the precise words he used matter.

I know you don't. That's what I find so astonishing about your side.

I think at this point some people are just so sick and tired of everthing that anything sets off more recriminations. And meanwhile, other people are so sick and tired of the people in the first group that any recriminations fall on increasingly jaded ears. And it winds up sounding like needless hysteria on those ears, so any real concerns are sort of caught up in the mess. It's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff as it were. Hm...I wonder if that's all a Karl Rove plot? I kid. I kid!

di

The difference between "topping" and "breaching" the levees is the difference between some inconvenient street flooding and the innundation and destruction of 80% of the city. Some water leaking over the top is not the same thing at all as the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ponchatraine pouring into the NOLA "bowl."

"The problem with Katrina was more than obvious. There were thousands of people in the convention center without food and water for days!!! ... If supplies had been sent earlier, many people would be alive today. How could you defend the administration on that?"

Blue Wind, could you give us a rough count of how many people died in the convention center? I'm pretty sure it was less than "thousands." In fact, I'm pretty sure it was less than 10. And while you're at: How many of the estimated 1500 Katrina fatalities were from starvation or dehydration? I think that number is also less than 10.

But you seem to have some expertise on this subject, so please give us the best estimates of how many people died in the Convention Center (from any cause) and how many Katrina victims died of starvation or dehydration.

Oh, Blue. How can you defend science when you are so very methodologically inept?

Are you seriously asking me to remember things, and then acting as though that's evidence?

You're making assertions. I'm not relying on anyone's memory, be it yours or mine, to come to a conclusion. I don't know you, and I do know better than to rely on my shoddy memory.

So give me sources. As WithoutFeathers puts it, give us some estimates, and show us what you are basing them on.

Because unless you've got some substance to add here, you're really doing nothing other than sounding sensationalist.

So Adam,
You dont remember if you were watching TV that day? The whole world had seen the suffering from thirst and dehydration in that convention center and we were embarassed as a nation. And you dont remember that? You can not be serious...

Do you need proof that Bush was on vacation the critical first 48 hours and Cheney at least the first 2 weeks? Thats a well established knoweledge. Come on.

"The problem with Katrina was more than obvious. There were thousands of people in the convention center without food and water for days!!! Bush did not even bother to interrupt his vacation until 2-3 days AFTER the disaster..." (BW)

That WOULD be a good point IF, FEMA was a 1st Responder...THEY ARE NOT.

The first line of defense, those primarily responsible for the immediate response (carrying out mandated evacuation, etc) are the City & State governments involved.

This may surprise some folks, but FEMA Teams don't work at FEMA, standing by in case of just such emergencies. They must be gathered from across the country, then briefed, equipped and transported to the emergency site. All that takes time, serious time.

A "fast FEMA response" is three or four days post-incident.

WHY?

Because FEMA is NOT a 1st responder.

The FEMA response to Katrina was not any later than its responses to Hurricanes Hugo or Andrew, of course Hugo & Andrew offered none of the challenges that Katrina did.

Once the levees broke, New Orleans was doomed.

Most of that city is, on average 10' BELOW sea level.

THAT, in and of itself, is a "disaster."

New Orleans SHOULD never be rebuilt as it was, and anyone building within an area below sea level should be denied federally funded and guaranteed insurance.

The facts were, tens of millions of federal dollars went to N.O. each year, expressly for the purpose of reinforcing those levees, but the Levee Commissions apparently thought that money was better spent on building a Casino and on junkets for the politically well connected.

The Army Corps of Engineers has warned that "no levee system can be built to withstand a Cat-5 hurricane.

On August 29th, 2005, a Cat-5 hurricane DID slam into the Gulf Coast and wiped out N.O. along with much of the reat of the Gulf Coast.

N.O, a city, on average, some 10' BELOW sea level was doomed once those levees broke.

Armed insurrection took hold of what was left of N.O. in the wake of the flooding, further hampering FEMA's ability to get into that stricken area.

FEMA was overwhelmed by an overwhelming event.

Bush did not appear engaged and did not inspire much confidence in the way he personally responded, but the basic and primary incompetence surrounding this disaster was Mayor Nagin's & Governor Blanco's.

The bottomline is FEMA is NOT a 1st Responder and the feds were NOT primarily responsible for the initial response, nor reaction to that disaster - the City & State governments WERE the 1st Responders here.

Yeah...uh...what JMK said.

And Blue, seriously dude, why do you always want everyone to take everything on faith? You some kinda wingnut? ;)

Adam,
You still did not answer. Were you watching TV those days? Do you need proof that you were watching TV those days? :)

Blue, you just make me feel tired all over.

The reason there were no supplies provided to the Superdome was because LA state officials blocked both the Red Cross and The Salvation Army from doing so. Their reasoning was that they were trying to evacuate people and, hence, did not want them to be too confortable.

Jesus, man, it was in all the papers! Why the hell don't you know this instead of playing the Blame Bush game?

You still did not answer. Were you watching TV those days? Do you need proof that you were watching TV those days?

Of course I remember. I remember them later admitting that the information they had gone on was inaccurate and that most of the things reported during Katrina were patently false.

I remember an estimate of 10,000 dead, and 20,000 body bags being purchased, and fewer than 1,000 died in New Orleans.

I remember a number of things. But I wouldn't pretend that those memories are evidence--hey, maybe I'm remembering it all wrong.

That's why we have sources, Blue--to support our arguments.

Why is getting you to do this for anything like pulling teeth? Honestly.

Oh man,
Dont talk about pulling teeth. I have been having a (real) toothache the whole day. I need to see my dentist desperately.

"The reason there were no supplies provided to the Superdome was because LA state officials blocked both the Red Cross and The Salvation Army from doing so. Their reasoning was that they were trying to evacuate people and, hence, did not want them to be too confortable." (Mal)

"I remember an estimate of 10,000 dead, and 20,000 body bags being purchased, and fewer than 1,000 died in New Orleans." (Adam)

True on both counts!

The problem with your arguments Blue is that they're generally juvenile.

The poor response to Katrina "wasn't Bush's fault."

He certainly did NOT inspire much confidence in a time of crisis and there were lots of flaws (many of them understandable, given the enormity of the event) in the federal response, but the PRIMARY and IMMEDIATE 1st Response was the responsibility of the State & Local governments in N.O. and in La.

I know it's a lot more fun blaming Bush for Nagin's & Blanco's mess, but it's also foolish.

Bush is responsible for the federal end, which, as I pointed out, was NOT a 1st response responsibility. He's also responsible for hiring Mike Brown, a crony appointment like 90% of the appointments to all such postions (unfortunately)...that's "politics." Blanco and Nagin are responsible for their own mess, which, sad to say, is the bulk of it - ALL the 1st Response responsibilites, in particular.

>Because FEMA is NOT a 1st responder...

JMK, maybe you'd better read FEMA's mission statement.

>We know the president meant this definition rather than yours becuase, well, because that's what happened...

Oh Barry, what happened to you, are you alright? You got me worried.

The question no longer appears to be what "is is", now it's what "breach is".

FEMA is NOT set up as a 1st Responder, NEVER WAS, Bob.

I know because NYC's FEMA team is comprised largely of FDNY members and some NYPD.

Those teams are designed to be briefed, then outfitted and equipped, then transported to the staging area at the disaster site, where they go over strategy before finally "getting to work."

Three to four days post-event is a good time frame for such a support team and that time frame has been the same for years.

FEMA did not respond to hurricanes Hugo or Andrew, nor to the World Trade Center any faster.

At the WTC, FEMA did NOT take anything like a "lead agency" role. THAT is NOT their function. Besides, the egos are big in both the NYPD and FDNY and no Fire or Police Unit from NYC is going to take orders from people they neither know nor completely trust. That's just the way things are.

The NYPD sent a contingent down to N.O. last September and arrived with strict instructions that they were NOT to participate in any "nationalized" effort...that is, they were not to take orders from anyone but NYPD incident commanders. The effort was, in fact, nationalized and they were quietly sent home when they refused to take orders from non-NYPD commanders.

The PRIMARY 1st Responder responsibility for any disaster rests entirely with the State and local governments. The security issues post-WTC attacks were initially, completely run by the NYPD and the rescue efforts were managed and run by the FDNY.

FEMA teams started arriving Thursday afternoon, and that was considered an incredibly fast response. The NG was present in force on NYC streets as of Wednesday the 12th.

What if NYC were hit by a huge tidal wave, or a dirty bomb set off within Manhattan?

I suspect that chaos in the stricken areas would ensue and depending upon the severity and the extent of the devastation to the City's infrastructure, armed insurrection could break out in some areas.

For better or worse, the 1st Responder roles would belong entirely to the FDNY & NYPD. FEMA and any other outside help could be expected three to four days post-incident and when they got there, they'd almost certainly be assured of being greeted with "It's ours," and "We got it," NOT "God, we're glad you guys are here."

From FEMA's site:
"As it has for more than 20 years, FEMA's mission remains: to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters..."

Bob,
Apparently some people refuse to see reality as it is. What is scary with the whole story is that the disastrous federal response to Katrina strongly suggests that we are unprepared to respond to a massive terrorist attack. The Bush administration has been completely incompetent, but its (few) supporters are willing to rationalize things in any way possible to convince themselves that everythings is fine.

>Because FEMA is NOT a 1st responder...

JMK, maybe you'd better read FEMA's mission statement.

I just did.

Want to quote me where it says that FEMA is a first responder?

According to its site, FEMA has a permanent body of 2,900 staff. Wanna tell me how that correlates into instant action?

Look into any of the following response groups within FEMA:

National Disaster Medical System (NDMS)

These teams provide medical and allied care to disaster victims. Teams are made up of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc, and are typically sponsored by hospitals, public safety agencies, or private organizations.

Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMAT)

They provide medical care at disasters and are typically made up of doctors and paramedics.

National Nursing Response Teams (NNRT)

National Pharmacy Response Teams (NPRT)

Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams (VMAT)

Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Teams (DMORT)

They provide mortuary and forensic services.

National Medical Response Teams (NMRT)

Thay are equipped to decontaminate victims of chemical and biological agents.

Urban Search and Rescue (US&R)

These task forces rescue victims of structural collapse and other confined spaces, ex. mines.

Mobile Emergency Response Systems (MERS)

These teams provide communications support to local public safety. For instance, they may operate a truck with satellite uplink, computers, telephone, and power generation at a staging area near a disaster, so that the responders can communicate with the outside world.

Mobile Air Transportable Telecommunications System (MATTS)

They have assets which can be airlifted in.

I hope this helps you to understand what FEMA's supposed to do.

Here's the mission statement for NDMS:

Our Mission

It is the mission of the National Disaster Medical System to design, develop, and maintain a national capability to deliver quality medical care to the victims of - and responders to - a domestic disaster. NDMS provides state of the art medical care under any conditions at a disaster site, in transit from the impacted area, and into participating definitive care facilities.

From FEMA's site:

The National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System provides for the coordination, development, and maintenance of the Federal effort with resources to locate, extricate, and provide immediate medical treatment to victims trapped in collapsed structures; and to conduct other life saving operations.

Are you getting it yet?

You guys are simply wrong.

JMK, I'd never argue that Bush didn't have responsibilities during that crisis. Nor would I disagree with anyone who said that he monumentally failed to promote confidence that things were being handled, etc, etc.

He royally sucks at just about anything having to do with that--letting people know what's going on, inspiring confidence, persuading...the whole shebang.

Are you getting it yet?

You guys are simply wrong.

What was that that JMK was saying earlier...about juvenile arguments?

"No, you're wrong! No, you're wrong! MOOOOOOOM!"

Adam: Perhaps I'm taking your comment the wrong way but did you bother to look at my three posts just prior to the one you quote?

Adam,
Are you refusing to read the evidence now? Do you need proof that Bob really got it from the FEMA site? Do you need proof that Bob really has a computer and can do this? :)

For the record, JMK is a first-responder, so his views on this should carry a lot of weight as he is our resident expert on the subject.

NEITHER THIS: "It is the mission of the National Disaster Medical System to design, develop, and maintain a national capability to deliver quality medical care to the victims of - and responders to - a domestic disaster. NDMS provides state of the art medical care under any conditions at a disaster site, in transit from the impacted area, and into participating definitive care facilities."

NOR THIS

"The National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System provides for the coordination, development, and maintenance of the Federal effort with resources to locate, extricate, and provide immediate medical treatment to victims trapped in collapsed structures; and to conduct other life saving operations."

DISPUTE WHAT I SAID, Bob.

No FEMA Teams are 1st Responders.

They have to be gathered, briefed, equipped and transported, first to a staging area, near the disaster and then brought in.

There are NO FEMA Teams that work out of a FEMA Office in Washington, D.C. at the reasy to respond.

I know because I've had FEMA training and I've worked along side the FEMA Teams that came to NYC post-9/11.

Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew saw a three day FEMA response. The WTC attacks saw FEMA Teams begin arriving by late Thursday.

A three day response, to me, is a good one for such an organization, considering their logistics.

And as I said, FEMA did NOT take any "lead position" at the largest terrorist attack in the U.S. - New York's FIRST RESPONDERS (FDNY & NYPD) DID.

FEMA is an after-the fact, "support agency. Nothing more.

"JMK, I'd never argue that Bush didn't have responsibilities during that crisis. Nor would I disagree with anyone who said that he monumentally failed to promote confidence that things were being handled, etc, etc." (Adam)

Nor would I...and I didn't. As I said; "The poor (immediate) response to Katrina "wasn't Bush's fault."

He certainly did NOT inspire much confidence in a time of crisis and there were lots of flaws (many of them understandable, given the enormity of the event) in the federal response, but the PRIMARY and IMMEDIATE 1st Response was the responsibility of the State & Local governments in N.O. and in La." (JMK)

"He royally sucks at just about anything having to do with that--letting people know what's going on, inspiring confidence, persuading...the whole shebang." (Adam)

"I've often said the same thing.

The Bush administration's communication is abysmal. When they DO go out and go directly to the people they do it well, BUT those times are few and far between...so they do "royally suck" in that department.

I have no problem blaming the administration for the numerous things its done wrong - NOT sealing off our Southern border is one, not getting real Social Security and Tax Reform through are two others and hiring crony appointments, as most politicians do, is another.

BUT I'm NOT going to blame him for an inept and bungled IMMEDIATE response to a disaster like Katrina (the most devastating to hit the American mainland ever).

The First Responders there in both N.O. and in the State of La FAILED to cary out their most basic functions as 1st Responders.

By the time FEMA Teams arrived three days later, armed insurrection had taken over N.O. and hampered any search and rescue efforts.

Local officials wouldn't allow food and water into the Superdome (as Mal pointed out) because they "were getting ready to move them and didn't want them too comfortable").

The primary problem with Katrina was a virtually absent Search & Rescue 1st Response.

That was the responsibility of the N.O. and La 1st Responders.

FEMA Teams are "support units" that come in three days, or so, after the fact, after being gathered, breifed, equipped, transported to a staging area nearby and then into the disaster.

Bob has found nothing and will find nothing that intimates that FEMA has a 1st Responder status and responsibilities.

>There are NO FEMA Teams that work out of a FEMA Office in Washington, D.C. at the reasy to respond.

JMK, you're splitting hairs.

>"...immediate medical treatment to victims trapped in collapsed structures..."

If you can't agree that this is precisely what first responders do then we must be speaking different languages and there's no point to discuss the matter further...

I think there might actually be the makings of a reasonable compromise here. How about if we split up first response responsibility along ideological lines.

Lib-lefties will receive "first response" relief in an emergency from FEMA, and con-righties will only be allowed first response from state and local agencies. We can even have two seperate emergency telephone systems. Lefties would call directly to D.C. if they are trapped in a collapsed structure and righties would have to settle for being rescued by local police and firefighters.

Heck, I'd even be willing to divide up all emergency services along those lines. If my apartment is on fire my only recourse would be to dial 911 and wait for the local fire station to respond. If my left-wing neighbors' apartments are burning, they will be connected immediately to someone in D.C. who will draw on firefighters and equipment from around the country to put the fire out and rescue them.

This plan will remove all hypocrisy from the right-wing's claims that FEMA is not a first responder!

"There are NO FEMA Teams that work out of a FEMA Office in Washington, D.C. at the reasy to respond." (JMK)

"JMK, you're splitting hairs.

>"...immediate medical treatment to victims trapped in collapsed structures..."

If you can't agree that this is precisely what first responders do then we must be speaking different languages and there's no point to discuss the matter further..." (Bob)

No, it's not splitting hairs.

The FEMA Teams come from all over the country and most members work in other agencies full time, like NYC's FEMA Search & Rescue Team is made up of mostly FDNY & NYPD members.

They must be gathered and leaves granted.

They must be briefed and equipped.

They must be transported to a staging area near the disaster site.

From there, they are transported directly into the disaster site.

That is NOT a 1st response capability.

It CAN'T be, due to logistics.

Can a medical team arrive faster than a Search & Rescue Team?

Maybe, but they're still being brought in from many distant places.

If FEMA was a 1st Responder, the FDNY & NYPD would've been the secondary agencies at Ground Zero at the WTC attacks.

I can assure you that that wasn't the case.

The FDNY & NYPD don't always get along and have been famous for a number of. often tendentious "turf battles," you don't think those two agencies are going to stand down and let FEMA Teams from FL & OK take over THEIR turf, do you?

By the time the first FEMA Teams arrived at the WTC, the last survivors had ben taken out a full day before. The last survivors got out early Tuesday afternoon.

The City is the PRIMARY 1st Responder to any disaster, natural or manmade.

The State is the second, as they're the next closest to that scene, but still further awy than the local areas 1st Responders.

The feds are days away.

They were days away from Katrina, just as they'd been days away from Hugo and Andrew and the 9/11 attacks.

FEMA has a vital, but not a PRIMARY or INITIAL mission at such an event.

JMK, Adam and withoufeathers,

I really dont get it with you guys. We had a city that was essentially destroyed. Who cares whether FEMA is the 1st responder or not? No matter how you take it, that was a federal disaster that necessitated a federal response. The federal response was tragically weak and incompetent.

I dont care if the mayor and the governor of LA were incompetent also. I care that our federal goverment could take not charge and help the victims of that disaster, no matter what the local goverments were doing. The president (in his vacation place) knew of a potential disaster 3-5 days in advance. What kind of a response should we expect if there is a terrorist attack without warning? How could you be defending incompetence? Competence has nothing to do with ideology. Give me a break.

"I think there might actually be the makings of a reasonable compromise here. How about if we split up first response responsibility along ideological lines.

Lib-lefties will receive "first response" relief in an emergency from FEMA, and con-righties will only be allowed first response from state and local agencies...." (WF)

Of course our Liberal friends will say that your tongue-in-cheek "solution" is invalid WF, since FEMA only responds to major disasters, BUT your scenario does capture the gist of the logistical problems involved.

A federalized or "nationalized" response is very limited by the logistics it has to deal with.

When you think of it, a two to three day response to a disaster, with teams from across the country, that need to be briefed, equipped, transported, granted leaves from their fulltime work, etc, is rather incredible.

The first FEMA Teams at Ground Zero after the WTC attacks arrived, late Thursday, more than two days after the event.

I believe the responses to Hugo and Andrew were three days...and those storms had nothing like the amount of total devastation that N.O. did and none of the armed insurrection we saw in N.O. after the event.

The new credo among ALL first responders (it's taught in every class) is that YOUR OWN SAFETY (the 1st Responder's safety) is paramount.

Why?

Because the thinking is, that if a 1st Responder goes down, he/she becomes part of the problem and draws much needed resources away from the overall search & rescue effort.

That's why FEMA kept its teams out of those stricken areas that suffered armed insurrection after the flooding.

Moreover, one only needs to look at N.O. compared to the rest of the Gulf Coast. Some parts of Alabama and Mississippi were hit just as hard and they both responded better initially and have come back a lot faster in the aftermath.

Some due to both their more effective 1st response and their subsequent cooperation with the feds earlier on and some due to both the corruption and incompetence in both N.O. and La.

About a month after Katrina an earthquake hit Pakistan's mountain regions and killed something like 60,000 people.

Now THAT'S a disaster!

By comparison New Orleans was leveled when those levees broke, they weren't "topped" as had been conceived of and warned about, but breached or broken.

Over 85% of that city was submerged!

And yet, LESS than 1,000 people died there.

Like an earthquake, the bulk of a hurricanes victims are made after the event, usually days and weeks later, when sewage and carrion infested waters inflict disease upon those in the immediate area and a lack of food and potable water inflict massive casualties from dehydration and starvation.

None of that happened in N.O.

Most of the deaths were limited to those drowned when the city was submerged (the bulk of them) and those (few) killed by armed thugs, when a temporary lawlessness ensued.

The initial response - the response by both the city of N.O. and the State of La were abysmal and that set the stage for a much larger problem that FEMA faced when it arrived three days after the event.

There were certainly flaws on every level, but those who wish to insist that the PRIMARY or 1st Responder responsibilities belonged to FEMA, the Feds and thus, the current administration, are, on that score, quite wrong.

"We had a city that was essentially destroyed. Who cares whether FEMA is the 1st responder or not? No matter how you take it, that was a federal disaster that necessitated a federal response. The federal response was tragically weak and incompetent.

I dont care if the mayor and the governor of LA were incompetent also. I care that our federal goverment could take not charge and help the victims of that disaster, no matter what the local goverments were doing." (BW)

Yes, a city was destoyed.

It was and remains a largely inviable city. That is, no city should exist 10' BELOW sea level and surrounded by large bodies of water waiting to fill it.

The federal response was there three days after the flooding. The same time frame that FEMA responded to hurricanes Hugo & Andrew.

The FEMA teams were held out of areas where armed insurrection reigned, until order was restored and rightly so.

FEMA was turned away from the Superdome by La State officials who said that since they planned to move thse people they didn't want them getting "too comfortable (as Mal correctly pointed out).

The same FEMA, under the direction of the very same administration, responded to the attacks of 9/11/01 and they worked about as well.

FEMA Teams arrived in NYC late Thursday and the NYPD & FDNY retatined operational control over that event.

I'd hope that FEMA would also "know it's place" in the event of another major terrorist event in a place like NYC.

They are NOT 1st Responders.

They do NOT assume operational control over our turf.

They do NOT "take over" Search & Rescue efforts when they arrive.

And they do not arrive in less than three days after the event.

I'm serious, I'd have a huge F'ing problem with them, if they did...and I wouldn't be the only one.

BW, the mantra of "a corrupt and incompetent" administration is not a critique, it's a "rant" or a "diatribe."

You're like a Limbaugh "ditto head" who takes the MSM attacks on the current administration as gospel because it reinforces your own biases.

That also validates the point I've always made that Talk Radio and FoxNews have NOT "made Conservatives," they've merely resonated with a huge segment of the population (31% to 34% depending upon estimates (compared to the appx 11% who claim to be Liberal).

People aren't "converted" by such media, many merely tend to gravitate toward the segment that reinforces their own innate belief system.

Anyway, those who assail the Bush administration for a failure to communicate their ideas and intentions are completely accurate.

The Bush administration is filled with far too many crumudgeons, from Cheney to Rumsfeld, who are far too secretive, and reticent, if not outright poor at communicating ANYTHING to ANYONE.

They've bungled the border issue.

They mishandled the Social Security debacle, but can still cop out and blame the Democrats for the insolvency up ahead, thanks to the Dems spearheading the "do nothing" campaign last Spring.

But Katrina?

Mike Brown handled 162 FEMA responses to various disasters pre-Katrina, without a hitch.

Mike Brown wouldn't have been my choice for FEMA Director, nor would his predecessor and College roomate, nor would most of the previous FEMA Directors.

Most are political hacks and cronyism/patronage appointments.

Hey! The FDNY has a career bureaucrat who knows nothing about the Fire Service (Nicholas Scopetta who presided over a scandal at BCS) as its Commissioner. Cronyism is the lifeblood of politics. It's just how things work.

So, I can't fault Bush any more than I can any other career politicians, on that issue.

He's disappointing on that score, to be sure, but so have all the rest been.

Your recent response to both Katrina and the Ports deal has been that silly mantra, "a corrupt and incomeptent administration."

The Ports deal IS being reviewed and I'm glad.

But it seems we have two choices on that score, we either go ahead with the Ports deal to DPW, as almost no security experts seem to view it as a major security risk for the U.S., even the Coast Guard has withdrawn the initial objections it claimed were "taken out of context," OR we move ahead with a FULL, ALL OUT WAR against ALL of Islam and the Arab/Islamic world.

As I've said, I think the better, or easier approach is trying to split the Arab/Islamic world into pro-Westerns versus pro-Islamicists, but if YOU and your ilk insist on an ALL OUT WAR against ALL of Islam, I could live with that too.

Let's just be crystal clear about where we stand on that.

Just drop your outdated objections over Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc in the "round file" (the garbage), as we'll no doubt be embarking on a number of other high risk, Mid-East adventures abroad and a much more ham-handed secruity state here at home, should we move in the direction you now seem to advocate.

Same with the Katrina debacle.

You can't argue that the feds were a 1st Responder.

They're not.

It takes days to get FEMA Teams to disaster sites.

Ironically enough, the actual corruption in N.O. (the Levee Commissions using funds meant for levee reinforcement for a Casino purchase and lavish junketts for themselves was outright CORRUPTION) and the incompetence from both N.O. & the state of La - both failed miserably and entirely in their 1st Responder missions and that failure led to armed insurrection taking hold in many parts of what was left of that city, making FEMA Team deployment there impossible.

As I said, the Bush administration has a lot of problems, especially in the communications arena, but you've pointed to NO/ZERO facts that support your claims of either "corruption" or "incompetence" on their part.

I pointed to two vivid examples of the corruption and incompetence on the local level above, can't you offer even one example of either from this WH?

I pointed to two vivid examples of the corruption and incompetence on the local level above, can't you offer even one example of either from this WH?

Yes several. One classic one is the Iraq war. It combines both corruption/lies and incompetence at the same time.

Hey!

Look at THIS!!!

[b]AP Clarifies Story About Katrina, Bush[/b]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/14015353.htm?source=rss&channel=thestate_news

[i]WASHINGTON — In a Wednesday story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing.

[b]The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun (or "topping"). The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.[/b]

The day before Katrina, Bush was told there were grave concerns the levees could be overrun.

It wasn’t until the next morning, as the storm made landfall, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had asked about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.[/i]

As Drudge noted, the AP clrification came on Friday night, designed to come out when far fewer people read the news.

Ya gotta love thos happy funsters in the MSM! Especially when they complain about FoxNews' and "Hate Radio's" "Right-wing biases.

It's a real knee-slapper alright.

"I pointed to two vivid examples of the corruption and incompetence on the local level above, can't you offer even one example of either from this WH?" (JMK)

"Yes several. One classic one is the Iraq war. It combines both corruption/lies and incompetence at the same time." (Blue Wind)

Well, I was hoping for an example from the Katrina response but I have the same problem with your "Iraq" example.

The invasion of Iraq was triggered by Iraq's refusal to comply with UN Resolution 1441.

That was THE OFFICIAL REASON for the invasion of Iraq.

Iraq DID NOT comply, so it was not a LIE. (Johnny Cochrane fans, eat your hearts out!)

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the world's leading "State Sponsor of Terrorism" from 1991 to 2003 according to the U.S. State Department.

Iraq harbored terrorists, including al Qaeda members pre-invasion. The al Qaeda led Ansar al Islam camps in Northern Iraq cooperated with Saddam's government in Baghda against a common enemy - the Kurds of nothern Iraq.

The U.S. Military dispatched of Iraq's vaunted Military, "the fourth largest army in the world," in less that three months - "Mission Accomplished."

Shortly thereafter, Saddam was found and put on trial.

Since the fall of Saddam's Baathist/nazi regime, Iraq has been a magnet for Jihadists from across the region and American and Allied forces have inflicted tremendous casualties on that movement...but sadly, a whole lot more killing needs to be done.

That's not just my opinion, former CIA official, Michael Scheuer, author of "Imperial Hubris" says the same thing - "We're simply not killing enough of our enemies."

Blue, you've been lied to!

You know all those folks who scream "Bush lied, people died...corrupt, incompetent Bush administration...Haliburton, Haliburton, rah, rah, rah"???

Yeah, the reason they never go into any specifics, is because they don't have any.

They sputter and stutter when confronted with UN Resolution 1441 as the real trigger for the Iraqi invasion, they virtually sh*t themselves over the fact that Saddam's Iraq was allied with the al Qaeda led Ansar al Islam movement in northern Iraq.

And they gasp at the Scheuer allegations. I suppose "peace and love" would sway the radical jihadist's heart, eh? "Let's give peace a chance?"

No, Iraq was no "mistake," the Military war on terrorism is no "mistake," and it's going to go on another twenty to twenty-five years....unless we're very unlucky and it goes on another fifty.

Keep listening to those folks who carp on things like Gitmo, the "abusive" Patriot Act and our "illegal wars," while offering no specifics. No "laws" that were violated, no "abuses" of the Patriot Act, nothing.

Keep on listening to them and you'll keep finding yourself unable to offer up any specifics either.

You know what people who complain about things without any specifics or details are, don't you?

They're shills.

Specifics are easy. Focus on one small area of a problem and look for something that's unwarranted, misrepresented or illegal and bring that up.

Michael Moore can't do it.

Dennis Kucinich can't do it.

Cindy Sheehan can't do it.

Hmmmm, come to think of it, few on the Left ever do it.

But it would be both refreshing and exciting if it ever did happen.

[JMK] I pointed to two vivid examples of the corruption and incompetence on the local level above, can't you offer even one example of either from this WH?

[BW] Yes several. One classic one is the Iraq war. It combines both corruption/lies and incompetence at the same time.

Friggin' amazing.

We are talking about Katrina and JMK's question was directed to that area of debate.

And what do you do?

Trot out the tired rhetoric about Iraq.

What's the matter, BW, can't stay within the parameters of the discussion?

Hell, why not bitch about Gitmo?

Ot Cheney's shooting?

Or Scooter Libby?

Or the hoary phrase of Pelosi about a 'culture of corruption'?

Stay on topic, man.

No misdirections.

No changing of the subject debated here.

Try answering JMK's question

Mal,
I stand by what I wrote. JMK asked for an example of incompetency and lies by the Bush administration. He did not specify the subject. Iraq is a "classic". It combines deliberate lies (by Bush and others) to start the war and extreme incompetence in the conduct of the war. Sorry, but it is an appopriate example that fully reflects the degree of corruption of this administration.

"Iraq is a "classic". It combines deliberate lies (by Bush and others) to start the war and extreme incompetence in the conduct of the war. Sorry, but it is an appopriate example that fully reflects the degree of corruption of this administration." (BW)

Again, that is a falsehood, BW.

The war wasn't started over a pretext about WMDs, but over a set trigger - Iraq's violation of UN Resolution 1441.

1441 was the reason America and Britain invaded Iraq.

Saddam's Iraq had violated 1441, giving those two nations all the reason needed to invade Iraq.

The war against Saddam's Iraq was handled incredibly well! It was over in less than three months, when Saddam's armies fell and Baghdad was occupied.

You CAN argue that the post-war "insurgency" has been handled in an incompetent manner, but then you'd be calling America's Military leaders (and I know all Liberals "respect our Military") incompetent...and they'd certainly disagree.

The bulk of the post-war violence in Iraq is the result of that country's becoming "Jihad central," drawing Islamo-nazis from all across the region. The coalition forces have inflicted massive casualties on the Jihadists who've come there.

The prospects of Iraq remaining unified were never good. It's actually amazing they were able to even hold unified elections.

Iraq is a lot like the former Yugoslavia - three different and disparate peoples and cultures - the Kurdish north, the Sunni center and the Shiite south.

Many Shiites would like to reunite with Iran and reform old Persia, while the Kurds to the north want their own independent state.

Saddam was the Marshall Tito of that region, holding a disparate people together in an inhospitable region by means of incredibly oppressive violence - secret police, torture and arbitrary murder.

Saddam was a vehement anti-Communist and was considered a valuable ally of the U.S. during the Iran-Iraq wars, against the then Soviet-backed Iranians.

After that conflict, he became alienated from the U.S. and ultimately hostile to it, especially after the 1991 Gulf War over his invasion of Kuwait.

Since that time, he was "the leading state sponsor of international terrorism," according to the U.S. State Department and THAT, along with his harboring terrorists (especailly his relations with al Qaeda led Ansar al Islam) made him a primary target in our war against BOTH "radicalized Islam"/Islamo-nazism and the rogue states that have sponsored, harbored and supported Islamo-nazi terrorists.

So in conclusion;
LEGAL WAR: Iraq's violation of UN Resolution 1441 provided the trigger for the invasion.

EFFECTIVE WAR: Saddam's Iraq fell in less than three months.

THE RIGHT TARGET: Saddam's Iraq was the leading state sponsor of terrorism (1991 - 2003) according to the U.S. State Dept and it had direct ties to al Qaeda via al Qaeda's Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq, which sided with Saddam's Iraq against the Kurds.

People can rightly complain about the post-Iraq war against all the Jihadists flooding into that area post-Saddam ("we didn't sign on for that"), but that's been a vital par tof the Military war on terrorism too.

People can also complain about the very possibly futile attempt to keep Iraq together post-Saddam (probably folly), as the three distinct cultures there have little in common and a lot of animus for each other, BUT the war was JUST, EFFECTIVE & NECESSARY.

....*Opens mouth to say something, but brain is broken by longass responses*

Dammit, I hate it when that happens.

This is why I haven't been to any forums in years.

Iraq is a lot like the former Yugoslavia - three different and disparate peoples and cultures

JMK,
No it is not. You show complete lack of understanding of the problem there. There is huge difference from Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was not surrounded by other countries that had a Serbian or Croation or Muslim population (with the exception of Albania that is Muslim). Iraq is in the middle east and anything that happens there can lead to chaos in the whole region because of the strong religious (muslim-shiites, etc) and ethnic (arabs) links.

Going into Iraq was a tragic error. As Wesley Clark said in a Sunday show today, we are now stuck with a C- versus F grade solution. It is a complete disaster and the Bush administration is fully responsible for this catastrophy.

Of all the points, you chose to take issue with THAT obvious analogy about Iraq's innate instability?

Iraq is INNATELY unstable, just as Yugoslavia was INNATELY unstable. Both pseudo-nations had to be held together by a tyrannical dictator.

The disparate people and cultures caught up in those pseudo-nations despreately wanted to be free and independent from each other.

Well, I'm glad you took issue with that rather than arguing that is wasn't a "JUST, EFFECTIVE & NECESSARY war," as it clearly was.

Well, I'm glad you took issue with that rather than arguing that is wasn't a "JUST, EFFECTIVE & NECESSARY war," as it clearly was.

Well, do the wolds "tragic error" and "catastrophy" mean something to you? Thats what I wrote about it, but it seems that you missed it or misinterpret it :)

Nope, you offered no/ZERO facts in response to the slew I gave you about the war;

(1) It was a "Legal" and thus "Just" war because of Saddam's Iraq violating UN Resolution 1441.

(2) The war against Saddam's Iraq was a quick, efficeint war, as it ended in less than three months.

and (3) Saddam's Iraq was a primary target in the war against Islamo-nazism because of Saddam's sponsoring and harboring terrorists including al Qaeda (the Ansar al Islam camps) in northern Iraq.

Calling something a "tragic error" does not refute any of the FACTS listed above.

What you did complain about was an analogy between Iraq and the former Yugoslavia - both are comprised of disparate peoples and cultures with lots of animosity between them, both were artificially formed, both were held together only under tyrannical, ultra-violent dictators...see ALL the similarities?

The common theme there is INNATE INSTABILITY.

The war against Saddam's Iraq was a quick, efficeint war, as it ended in less than three months.

Thats great news. I think you should inform the president and the Department of Defense, because somehow they still think we are at war in Iraq.

You're not aware that Saddam's Iraq (Baathist/nazi Iraq) doesn't even exist any more?!

Well, yeah, it officially ended when Baghdad fell and the Iraqi army was defeated.

That's the GOOD news!

Of course, the BAD news (if it really is "bad news"...I guess it is to some) is that we've probably got at least another 21 years of ugly, brutal war left, based on an optimistic 25 year campaign against radical Islam/Islamo-nazism. It could actually drag on longer...it's a pretty large, global fight.

As I said above, "You CAN argue that the post-war "insurgency" has been handled in an incompetent manner, but then you'd be calling America's Military leaders (and I know all Liberals "respect our Military") incompetent...and they'd certainly disagree.

"The bulk of the post-war violence in Iraq is the result of that country's becoming "Jihad central," drawing Islamo-nazis from all across the region. The coalition forces have inflicted massive casualties on the Jihadists who've come there."

If you're claiming to disagree with that last statement and believe that we're still at war with Saddam's Iraqi Army, or even the new government of Iraq, you're gravely mistaken and I would like to see you find a single MSM news source (print or video) that backs up that inane view.

Hint: There are NONE.

Saddam's regime fell apart by May of 2003 and Saddam himself was caught in that hole of his shortly thereafter. (August of 2003?)

Oh yeah, this'll probably shock you - Saddam Hussein is...get this...ON TRIAL...and check this out, in IRAQ, of all places.

See, there's this new, democratically elected government there (long story)...and that government has asked the Americans to stay and train their police and Military so they can take over the fight against the jihadists - both the Sunni malcontents who are angry over losing total dominion over that country and the Islamo-nazis from surrounding countries that have poured into that country post-Saddam.

American troop numbers in Iraq have been going down since December, though opponents of the current administration fear that's only as they prepare to invade another "harmless Arab country," this time Iran.

You know, I was kind of wondering whether it would be Iran or Syria after Iraq...but it looks like Iran stepped up. Of course, I'm betting there'll be a few UN resolutions ignored and some saber rattling before Iran gets body slammed, but it's almost certainly going to be a very long and drawn out campaign against Islamo-nazism.

But yeah, get an old Time or Newsweek from late 2003 or early 2004 and check it out - Saddam's armies fell in less than three months.

The Baathist regime is gone from Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been put on trial by a new Iraqi government!

There's a lot more, but I don't want to give away all the surprises!

In a general way, if your defense of Bush's performance in the way in which FEMA handled the New Orleans disaster depends on parsing words, doesn't that sound kind of weak and lame to you?

By the way, you can ease up on the "liberals" rhetoric a hair. One of my co-workers, a libertarian with who I disagree all the time, refers to the "breached" versus "topped" meme as a "meaningless distinction," with which I concur. Anyway, it isn't just "liberals" who consider it a meaningless distinction.

We're not defending Bush's record. We're pointing out a bogus news story. This is not a mere parsing or semantics issue. Your libertarian friend not withstanding, the words mean something altogether different in this context.

Nice work, BW, steering the thread away from Katrina to Iraq.

I knew that was your intent as it's a typical gambit of the left to change topics when you don't like the way the debate is flowing.

JMK, love ya bro, but don't take bait that allows them to get off the hook.

You may have noticed that he still hasn't answered your question.

Contrary to your Libertarian friend's assessment, DBK, there is very clear and real distinction between a "breach" and an "overflow."

The AP printed a clrification on that Friday. Even Slate carried it online;

AP Clarifies Story About Katrina, Bush

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/14015353.htm?source=rss&channel=thestate_news

WASHINGTON — In a Wednesday story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing.

The Army Corps of Engineers (ACoE) considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before Katrina, Bush was told there were grave concerns the levees could be overrun.

It wasn’t until the next morning, as the storm made landfall, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had asked about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

The reason the ACoE's definition is so important to the discussion is that the levees around N.O. have been topped in other storms, with minor flooding and little substantial damage.

A casual reader or watcher of the news couldn't be expected to know that, but every single one of the reporters should - it's their jobs!

You're right, as usual Mal.

Once that AP clarification came out, it was like the rug was pulled out from under this whole argument.

That keeps happening over and over, from Dan Rather not being able to vet the documents given to him by a long time "political activist," to "the elections in Iraq will never come off," to this.

If I were the Left, I'd blame the media!

They're the ones always building up expectations for finally "getting this guy" (Bush) and then dropping the ball and admitting defeat, leaving so many hopefuls high and dry.

Sure, it's fun for folks who (A) already mistrust the MSM, or (B) those who'd prefer they'd focus on "getting him" on something he ACTUALLY DID, or DIDN'T DO, like failing on border security, the huge domestic/non-security overspending and failing to communicate effectively.

But I guess those things aren't "juicy" enough for them, but this continual raising of expectations, only to crash in defeat for being unable to make the full case, has to hurt folks like Blue and Bailey who continually have their hopes dashed.