Hurricane Katrina

[Tessar]

I personally think that another thing that slowed down rescue and relief efforts is the fact that people trying to help are getting sniped at.

If you're a life-guard, and you're trying to help someone who's hysterical and grabbing at you, you have to fight them off so you can get them into the proper position for dragging out of the water, but if they're about to drown you as well then you have to leave them and save yourself--basic lifeguard 101.

Also before you go pointing the finger at the federal government, there are a couple of factors to keep in mind:

1. Living in a city that's below sea level isn't smart to begin with. Yes, 23% of the population wasn't 'rich' enough to get out, but that doesn't account for all the people who chose to live there, knowing that there was a risk.

2. Where was the State's contingency plan? The federal government, as far as I understand, is supposed to stay out of the way of the states for the most part in things like that. Why wasn't Louisiana ready to save N.O.?

I agree Bush has been far from the best president over the last four to six years, but I think it's silly to say that the lack of support is due to him personally.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Tessar

1. Living in a city that's below sea level isn't smart to begin with. Yes, 23% of the population wasn't 'rich' enough to get out, but that doesn't account for all the people who chose to live there, knowing that there was a risk.

Living in a city below sea level isn't smart to begin with? Living in the low lands I heartedly protest that statement! The risks are no larger than living in a city built next a river but you do have to keep your dams and levees in working condition and always keep in mind that having them is not enough, they need maintenance. And as I understand the funding for those structures was cut 2 years ago. Now that isn't smart in my book.

[Tessar]

Hmm. An excellent point. I take back my first statement, then .

[Fat middle]

I've been away for almost the whole week. Just wanted to express my condolences and to say that the victims and their families are in my prayers.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Living in a city below sea level isn't smart to begin with? Living in the low lands I heartedly protest that statement! The risks are no larger than living in a city built next a river but you do have to keep your dams and levees in working condition and always keep in mind that having them is not enough, they need maintenance. And as I understand the funding for those structures was cut 2 years ago. Now that isn't smart in my book.

Yet the risks and problems existed well before any funding cuts. During Clinton's presidency it was already known that a hurricane of Katrina's level could devastate New Orleans. The levees were only designed to cope with a category 3, and when Katrina hit, it was with the power of a category 5.

[Mercutio]

Let me note that New Orleans survived the initial hurricane on the first day. They were doing well...until the storm surge, then the levees broke. I wouldn't expect their to be a huge response at the very beginning then.

I'm disappointed that so many media people are blaming the evacuation/refugee problems on race. No one is purposely holding back aid or not trying to help because New Orleans is 2/3 (?) black.

This will definately hurt the Republicans in the next election.

[Ben]

Bm, you've obviously got a bias that fact and statement cannot change and so I shall not even try.

Spock - I think you just don't want to go supporting your opinions with facts. Please, let's have an intelligent debate using media reports, budget data, rules regarding which agency does what. If you take the time and use news reports and numbers that clearly contradict my conclusions, I'll rescind my statements. I promise. Arguing with opinions alone does little but waste everyone's time. If my information is wrong, please debunk it, and come up with data and reports to back up your own assertions. Please. I'm begging for a real debate on this rather than just a cop-out and retreat. If there's too much information that I've posted, then you can focus on just one or two of my claims. If I didn't properly source a fact, then I'll be happy to dig up a reference for you. Don't let it go all unanswered - that doesn't do your point of view justice.

You said that Bush "couldn't know exactly what would be needed and where." Do you really believe that with scenes of New Orleans in shambles on TV, he didn't know enough to immediately end his vacation? He didn't have the empathy to cancel his schmoozing with music stars as people were dying? He couldn't have been upset enough to personally phone his underlings and tell them to fill the next transport to New Orleans with troops? In this case, you give the man too little credit. He's not an idiot, and he has some highly skilled and informed advisors. Ok, so maybe you think Bush himself doesn't know how to respond. What about the administration - the Cabinet, the agencies? If you think that his advisors are not up to the challenge of immediately telling the president how to competently react to a predictable national disaster, four years after 9/11, then isn't that grounds for their firing?

Bush is the president, so I wanted to be able to look up to him and see him leading the way after this disaster. I really did. I have no reason to want him to fail with lives at stake; the man is never up for re-election ever again anyway. I would love to point to his handling of this crisis as a highlight of an administration that otherwise makes policy choices I disagree with. Even if it meant a bump in Republican approval ratings, I really wish that Bush and his administration had reacted competently; they didn't.

Some Republicans are saying that all criticism of Bush has to be partisan and biased. If that is the case, why did the conservative Washington Times write on Friday that they "expected to see, many hours ago, the president ... rallying a dazed country to action." Why did former (Republican) Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich say that the federal response to Katrina "calls into question all of the Homeland Security and Northern Command planning for the last four years, because if we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?" Why did Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana say that he gives federal disaster relief efforts a "failing grade"? If you are unfamiliar with the Washington Times or Mr. Gingrich, I'll provide documentation of their Republican bona fides.

If Newt Gingrich and the Washington Times are saying the same thing as me, does that mean they also have a bias that fact and statement cannot change? Because I voted for Kerry, does that mean that figures and quotes I get from government websites and media reports, along with all my logic, must be wrong or unworthy of comment? Everyone has a bias. You seem to be right-of-center and I'd be willing to bet that you didn't vote for the Democratic governor of Virginia (you can correct me on this though). Does that mean that you are disqualified from forming opinions on Gov. Warner's handling of a given situation, just because of your ideological bent? Please reply - I'm genuinely perplexed on these questions.

I spent two and a half hours researching last night's post, and an hour on this one. Southern courtesy alone dictates I should get at least 20 minutes of your time.

Everyone else: I plan on responding to as many replies as I can, even from partisan Republicans (they're people too .) Please hold on; I'll add more responses when I get a chance.

[Ben]

bump

[Spock]

I mean what I say.

[gdl96]

nicely said, ben.

my two cents:
these people lack food and water.
the hurricane was several days ago.
where is their food and water? it's inexcusable and embarrassing. drop food and water from airplanes like we do in africa if need be, i don't care. those shelters in New Orleans shouldn't make America look like a third world nation.

[Butterbeer]

wow, there's anough points here to write a book about.

One thing from skimming through that strikes me about the "debate" though is that it does seem underlying many of the points that there is here political bias creeping in - on here in this thread i mean.

I really think it would be sick to twist this debate arond to petty politics when it is about a large scale natural tragedy that is unfolding even now as we speak, with starvation, thirst, people cut off, lost, alone, wet, cold, feverish, injured, despairing, with brutal lawlessness, rape, beatings, looting and murder, in a mere few days the decline of moral codes and the ideals of civilisation ... the loss of people's life savings and properties and business's etc ... and the poor the worst off in all respects .... will they all have insurance? etc.


The response really does seem, no matter the scale, abolutely incredibly undeniably pathetic ... they knew a large scale hurricane was coming right at new orleans a few days before .... they had models of potential impacts... it was condisered the one of the three "most likely" major national disaster to plan for ... ok "likely" here Lief probably means not that it is likely to happen in any XXX numbers of years ... but as likely as anything else unexpected that may happen and needs planning for...


I think BM is right that this should not be viewed in any way about political bias: there is a very real bigger picture here: and everyone imho should not try to make cheap political tricks out of this.


By the way don't ask me for facts about underlying bias creeping in ... this is just a feeling and hunch ... so you'll get no examples from me any of you!

Plus, not being an American i have only good guesses (hopefully) about who's who etc ... anyway it's not something i really want to know or think about.



For myself, firstly i am glad to see that people ARE interested in this topic!

I think it is indisputable that the federal goverment has been diabolically slow and useless in responding ... now they seem to have woken up and read the vastly mounting criticism .... and thought about the International repercussions of America looking incompetent and powerless. I fear this will not play well for your image around the world. And it will sadly be a flame to a moth for Extremists, both in case of the moral decay and lawlessness, rapes, murder, beatings, etc and the percieved weakness of your ability to handle homeland security or other such situations in your own back yard.

Now please all be clear: this is not an attack on you guys just what i fear it looks like from abroad ...


Maybe now they are starting to wake up and smell the coffee .. and i know not how much is local (surely devastated? or at least severly devastated) state or city administration or how much is federal ... but with a NATIONAL disaster on this scale you look to your countr'y leader ....


when some one pointed out (was it BM?) that bush was playing guitar ... i thought of Tony blair.. because he plays the guitar and has done with many celebs etc ....


but whatever you (or I) may think of the UK leader ... can you imagine Blair playing guitar at a time like that? No he's have been off straight away and
organising a centralised response effort and been flying over the area asap and having other key figures do so.


Many of my points come down to this: it is not that they could in anyway help everyone or solve everything overnight ... not possible at all, nor with the scale does anyone expect them to ... but whatever humanly possible help and response that was at least possible wasn't done either at all, or quickly, or in any way efficiently: they seeme to have their heads in the sand ...

and the local boys must have been hard hit by this .... ultimately it comes down to National goverment ... and that is not , and really shouldn't at this point, not be a political thing - not yet!

Time to pull together and help out in anyway we can.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This warning was made during Clinton's presidency. The problem was not started with the Bush Administration, but is embedded in the city itself. Of course you can argue that the Bush Administration added to the problem, but it cannot be argued that it is "primarily responsible," or "grossly negligent," in any way that previous governments weren't. This needs to be kept in mind as blame is assigned.

I would not say that "primary responsibility" lies anywhere specifically.

However, it is a fact that Bush was briefed by FEMA in 2001 that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most catastrophic scenarios that the US could face.

It is also a fact that his administration cut funds from levee construction and maintenance, and that they overturned his father's (and Clinton's) policies on protecting wetlands, which reduce the size of storm surges.

Sure, responsibility probably is shared elsewhere, at the state and local levels. However, it is a fact that these particular actions were taken at the federal level. If that's not contributory negligence then I don't know what is.

On the issue of the response, it has been dire and even the republicans are admitting it. The "you would say that because you're politically opposed to Bush" defence just won't wash. If anything it's the other way around: Bush supporters who are so partisan that they can't see how negligent he really is.

Does anyone *really* think the response would have been the same if it had been rich white people stuck in that city?

[Butterbeer]

*sounds like Sam*

y'right gaffer.

Does anyone *really* think the response would have been the same if it had been rich white people stuck in that city?

My colleauge mentioned this yesterday on a shoot.
sadly there has got to be some grains at least of truth in this - at the very least -

this is not to say at a state or federal level there is a carpet approach that actively or openly distinguishes one from another ...

but many here are saying various levels of similar things... plus of course in terms of percentages, i think we'll find a much higher percentage of those that wanted to leave did so were white or rich (at least upwardly mobile) ... and that whole lumping in percentage terms between White and well to do is a whole other issue that is still there and has been shown to be still there by this natural disaster....

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Does anyone *really* think the response would have been the same if it had been rich white people stuck in that city?

Unfortunately, no I don't think it would have been. But to put it in scale I also think it would've been different if there had been a lot of rich black people stuck in the city--from what I remember N.O. is mostly a slum town.

But I agree, and it always makes me so angry to hear reporters saying that blacks are looting and whites are only 'looking for food'. Maybe there are more blacks than whites who are just taking whatever they want, but then N.O. is a predominately black city so of course there are--it's a 'scale' thing. Whatever they might say, the media is biased against blacks.

[Ben]

The "you would say that because you're politically opposed to Bush" defence just won't wash. If anything it's the other way around: Bush supporters who are so partisan that they can't see how negligent he really is.

Thanks Gaffer and Greg. Note that I say this as a regular user and not an admin,

Again: a number of prominent Republicans and conservatives criticized Bush and his administration's reponse just as harshly as I have. Thanks to everyone else who is actually engaging me on my points, particularly Tessar and Lief.

Butterbeer - you're right. I don't think Tony Blair would be playing the guitar and goofing around as his people were dying. Here's the link to a picture and caption about Bush's guitar playing on Tuesday afternoon:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...apm10208301856



Note that it happened on Tuesday, after the levees broke and after the Governor said "the situation is untenable... it's just heartbreaking."

Butterbeer - I believe in accountability and transparent government. I agree that during such a disaster, petty politics should be put aside - for example, I wouldn't want the Democrats to use Bush's new vulnerability to launch a new health care proposal this week. But as you said - people are dying, and it appears that decisions made on the federal, state, and local level may have contributed to the lack of preparedness and the lack of effective response. This is four years after 9/11, and the agencies have allegedly been retooled to act swiftly in response to a big disaster like this. I think the American people deserve accountability on why our government failed us. I'm not looking for a scapegoat for a tragedy launched by an act of God - I'm looking at specific policy choices made in light of the multiple warnings about such a hurricane given by the goverment's own agencies. If accountability doesn't happen now, when will it? How will the government ever be able to protect us if not forced to improve? I don't believe that any one political figure or party bears primary responsibility for the fiasco, but let's have a bipartisan investigation into what Gaffer deems "contributory negligence."

Oh, and for those of you who are not American - thanks for hanging in there as we get somewhat technical about the different levels of U.S. government. If at any time you get confused about how it all works, please just ask - I want everyone to be on the same page here .

Oh - and just to mention. I know a lot of the people in this thread are in fact staff members, but I just wanted to clarify that every statement I make in this thread, unless otherwise noted, is as a regular user and not as an admin. I know I've been rather pointed in some instances, but I'm pretty upset about both the disaster and the lack of response my researched posts are getting at Entmoot. I'm not gonna ban anyone over it, don't worry .

More responses when I get a chance - even to biased Republicans .

edit: toned down some word choice and added the pic

[Lotesse]

Well, I'd respond, Bmilder, but the thing is I agree entirely with every point you've been making, so I'd look somewhat like a kiss-ass if I just hopped into this thread & responded to everything you put forth! For real. It's fascinating to read how others respond, though; one kinda gets a sense of what our other "lead mooters" are really like, from witnessing just how they feel about this issue.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by bmilder

Butterbeer - you're right. I don't think Tony Blair would be playing the guitar and goofing around as his people were dying.

Are you saying that Tony Blair has never played the guitar since the Iraq war started?

Originally Posted by bmilder

I think the American people deserve accountability on why our government failed us. I'm not looking for a scapegoat for a tragedy launched by an act of God - I'm looking at specific policy choices made in light of the multiple warnings about such a hurricane given by the goverment's own agencies. If accountability doesn't happen now, when will it? How will the government ever be able to protect us if not forced to improve? I don't believe that any one political figure or party bears primary responsibility for the fiasco, but let's have a bipartisan investigation into what Gaffer deems "contributory negligence."

I'm sure there will be investigations into how this happened. Probably a few months from now, a great deal more information will be available to us. I tend to agree with Tessar though, that a lot of the responsibility for New Orleans rests with the state. One of the critical points to Republican philosophy is that more state and private control is better than massive overarching federal control.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

The response really does seem, no matter the scale, abolutely incredibly undeniably pathetic ... they knew a large scale hurricane was coming right at new orleans a few days before .... they had models of potential impacts... it was condisered the one of the three "most likely" major national disaster to plan for ... ok "likely" here Lief probably means not that it is likely to happen in any XXX numbers of years ... but as likely as anything else unexpected that may happen and needs planning for...

There may well have been some federal mistakes made. I think people in the government really didn't think a hurricane there to be a likely scenario. There was incompetence. There also was a bad need for this money in other places, like the war on terror. Hence, mistakes were made. Mistakes that might have been made in any government, not just the Bush Administration. Let me remind you again of another thing, however. Hurricane Andrew was a category 5, and during Clinton's presidency people were saying that a hurricane of that strength could devastate New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina hit with the same force. The same thing would have happened had another presidency been in charge.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I think it is indisputable that the federal goverment has been diabolically slow and useless in responding ...

Perhaps the fact that this is "one of the three most devastating disasters the US can face" would account for some of the chaos that slowed our reaction?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sure, responsibility probably is shared elsewhere, at the state and local levels. However, it is a fact that these particular actions were taken at the federal level. If that's not contributory negligence then I don't know what is.

I'm very close to agreeing with you here. I am only withholding judgment to see what arguments concerning this come up.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Are you saying that Tony Blair has never played the guitar since the Iraq war started?

My guess is that Tony Bliar did not go playing the guitar 24 hours after the London bombings.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm sure there will be investigations into how this happened. Probably a few months from now, a great deal more information will be available to us. I tend to agree with Tessar though, that a lot of the responsibility for New Orleans rests with the state. One of the critical points to Republican philosophy is that more state and private control is better than massive overarching federal control.

There may well have been some federal mistakes made. I think people in the government really didn't think a hurricane there to be a likely scenario. There was incompetence. There also was a bad need for this money in other places, like the war on terror. Hence, mistakes were made. Mistakes that might have been made in any government, not just the Bush Administration. Let me remind you again of another thing, however. Hurricane Andrew was a category 5, and during Clinton's presidency people were saying that a hurricane of that strength could devastate New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina hit with the same force. The same thing would have happened had another presidency been in charge.

Perhaps the fact that this is "one of the three most devastating disasters the US can face" would account for some of the chaos that slowed our reaction?

I'm very close to agreeing with you here. I am only withholding judgment to see what arguments concerning this come up.

It may well be that this would have happened no matter who was president. But we can't know that. This is where it can, and will, get partisan. It will be hard to stay politically neutral because it's such a charged issue.

For example, it will be hard to ignore how the Iraq war took resources away (from levee maintenance and from the National Guard), as did tax cuts for the rich (unless Donald Trump donated his windfall to levee building...). The racial divisions are clear for anyone to see who has a television (I haven't seen those reports of "blacks looting; whites taking what they need"; that's disgusting; anyway, why is it in these situations that it's suddenly OK to shoot people just because they're "looting"?? Surely a human life is worth more than a TV.).

This kind of disaster shows how interdependent we all are and therefore how we need good, accountable central government to co-ordinate things. The only direct comparison I can think of here is the Thames barrier, which protects London from flooding but which was paid for largely by central government (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...335688/341764/).

The "big is bad" mantra regarding government may well be shown to be shortsighted by all of this. Maybe also the laissez faire approach to welfare. (One of the things I've been reading regarding why people didn't leave was that they live "paycheck to paycheck", had nowhere to go and no welfare safety net to catch them when they got there: they had no reason to believe they would not be left to starve when they arrived in Baton Rouge or wherever). And never mind the whole climate change and fossil fuels debates.

However, I think we can rest assured that any investigation which shows signs of heading in that direction will be headed off before it reaches those conclusions.

The impression I get is that there is a lot of anger about this, and it won't go away. Clearly, the priority now is to get people out and save as many lives as possible. However I get the feeling that this is Bush's Black Wednesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday), which destroyed the Tories' reputation for economic competence.

[Spock]

Unless one expects the President to go lay sand bags and give out meals, he has a lot to do and a normal schedule of places to be. That being said, the photo had a caption:
President Bush plays a guitar presented to him by Country Singer Mark Wills, right, backstage following his visit to Naval Base Coronado, Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005. Bush visited the base to deliver remarks on V-J Commemoration Day.
I was wrong on the fund raising but the purpose of the visit and the fact that it was a military station shows it wasn't frivolous.
And I can't keep spending time on researching such misleading stuff!


I now understand Mr. Blair can play guitar...however, there wasn't any fund raising for the bombing victims, immediately after the event, that I am aware of or reported in the media for him to play a guitar at.

[The Gaffer]

Clinton would be eyeing up the talent no doubt. Actually, I'm pretty sure Clinton would have performed a million times better in that situation.

Bliar can play the guitar, he was in a band in his youth.

Viewers of a nervous disposition should not follow this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3873315.stm