Hurricane Katrina

[Rían]

Thanks for the input, Tree Dweller - I always appreciate first-hand info; that's why I liked hearing from Beor so much when he was in Iraq!

[Ben]

"Likely"? This you will have to back up. When was the Bush Administration told that a massive hurricane in New Orleans was likely? I know the scenario was considered, but you'll have to explain your use of the word "likely".

Sure. In 2001, the "Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters facing this country," according to a December 1, 2001 article in the Houston Chronicle. The article is no longer on the Chronicle's website, but copies were stored at archive.org and the hurricane center at LSU.

Now, I haven't seen a copy of the actual FEMA report in question, but for those who might want to suggest the report could be distorted in the article - keep in mind the article is from 2001, years before anyone could even dream of "scoring points" against Bush for reporting about New Orleans, and the article is from a paper that endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004.

So there you have it . As early as 2001, the Bush administration's own agency reported that this was going to be deadly, and this was likely. Given that this FEMA report proved almost prophetic in predicting another catastrophe (the terrorist attack on NYC), I would think that Bush would then want to move heaven and earth starting in 2001 to make sure the second of the trio of catastrophes was minimized. Instead, funding was cut (see a previous post) and no creative solutions were proposed.

More shortly...

[The Gaffer]

I see that Dubya is to conduct an investigation into the response: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4220246.stm

So that'll be independent and balanced, then.

[Insidious Rex]

Holy crap theyre gonna demolish the Super Dome.... And you wont be able to drink the water in New Orleans for years after this...

[Rían]

I'm not surprised about the Super Dome, unfortuately ...

I sure hope the water supply gets fixed soon.

[Lotesse]

I read in the New York Times yesterday that close to 10, 000 people are presumed to have died. TEN THOUSAND!?! Unbe-friggin'-lieveable. That is an absolutely astronomical number.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I see that Dubya is to conduct an investigation into the response: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4220246.stm

So that'll be independent and balanced, then.

Well, if he does NOT conduct an investigation, then he'll be pilloried and excoriated.

If he DOES, maybe he'll only be excoriated.




Can't blame the guy...


On other fronts - what was the third thing on the FEMA list, btw? And for those who know more about the government, when is it the state's responsibility for taking care of their own unique issues, and when is it the fed's? Obviously, the feds should help if there's a disaster, but is the Lousiana gov't getting criticisms, too, or do they get a pass because it's more fun to criticize Bush? I haven't seen too much coverage of this - our tv's been off for the summer (it's getting turned on today, tho). What I wonder about, when I hear criticisms of the feds from citizens of other countries, is if they're aware that state gov'ts get their own state tax revenues and have their own departments for dealing with their own particular issues. It seems to me that criticism of the Lousiana gov't has been a bit light.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

On other fronts - what was the third thing on the FEMA list, btw? And for those who know more about the government, when is it the state's responsibility for taking care of their own unique issues, and when is it the fed's? Obviously, the feds should help if there's a disaster, but is the Lousiana gov't getting criticisms, too, or do they get a pass because it's more fun to criticize Bush? I haven't seen too much coverage of this - our tv's been off for the summer (it's getting turned on today, tho). What I wonder about, when I hear criticisms of the feds from citizens of other countries, is if they're aware that state gov'ts get their own state tax revenues and have their own departments for dealing with their own particular issues. It seems to me that criticism of the Lousiana gov't has been a bit light.

there is criticism all around... not just on bush

most of the criticism of the federal government concerns the fact that action wasn't taken earlier to possibly have averted such a disaster (or diminished it's effects)... and since the federal government is paying much more now then they would if they had helped out back then, it would have been in their best interest

the local government has also taken criticism... but they simply don't have the resources (which is why they asked for help from the federal government in the first place)

[Ben]

Well, if he does NOT conduct an investigation, then he'll be pilloried and excoriated.

If he DOES, maybe he'll only be excoriated.




Can't blame the guy...

Not quite. I don't think anyone was calling for Bush to lead the investigation. This is a man who, when asked, couldn't think of a single instance where he had made an error during his administration. Would Bush, famous for his loyalty, really be willing to detail the failures of the FEMA director, whom he calls "Brownie"? Imagine that instead of Kenneth Starr leading the investigation into Bill Clinton's affairs, Clinton himself had overseen it. Would you have trusted the outcome of that investigation? (I know I wouldn't have). For any politician, the temptation to gloss over your own mistakes would be too great.

I'd say there's a bit of a conflict of interest here, to put it mildly .

Ideally, something akin to the 9/11 Commission should be empaneled. Bush selected the members of that, and largely managed to create a bipartisan panel that was professional and fair. The head of the commission was Tom Kean, a Republican governor of my state but very independent-minded.

Real bipartisan congressional investigations could also be appropriate. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), chair and ranking member (respectively) of the Senate committee that oversees disaster relief, have discussed the idea of hearings. These have the potential to truly get to the bottom of this - Collins and Lieberman are both infamous within their parties for straying from the party line too often.

[Ben]

Hey Spock - thanks for the correction in your edited post regarding Bush's guitar playing.

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 don't think I was misleading at all. After the levees broke, and people were drowning in New Orleans and every minute counted, Bush was playing guitar with a country rock star. I provided a link to the caption, but frankly the VJ Day part just isn't relevant.

VJ Day is a important, non-frivolous date in American history that should be appropriately celebrated. However, VJ Day is actually August 14th. What was the urgency of celebrating it two weeks late?

It is my understanding that this guitar incident happened backstage - that is, not part of the VJ Day speech. What do guitars have to do with military bases or World War II anyway? It seems this was nothing more than a photo-op. Note the presidential seal on the guitar - Mark Wills didn't do this on the spur of the moment.

World War II veterans fought to keep their American civilian brethren alive - I'm sure they'd understand if the president had to postpone the already late speech in order to take command of the developing situation in the Gulf.

You can stand by your words and mean what you say all you want, but the fact remains that Bush stuck to his standard schedule and apparently felt no sense of urgency about this catastrophe. Each individual event that day may have been perfectly appropriate on any other day, but surely these commemorations and stump speeches and photo ops could have waited?

To some degree, Bush's actions on that day would just be symbolic. If he had immediately ended his vacation and jetted back to Washington DC and held meetings, regardless of what he accomplished, it would have given the country the impression that he was taking control of the relief efforts and was very concerned. His sticking to other events made it seem like he didn't care at all about what was going on. But there's more than just symbolism. Your point about him sticking to his schedule only makes sense if Bush is nothing more than a figurehead. I don't like many of the man's other policies, but he is no dummy, and is constitutionally charged with leading the executive branch of the U.S. government. There are a million substantive things he could've been doing instead of plugging his Medicare programs and goofing around with musicians. Note that Vice President Cheney was also on vacation at the time, and didn't resurface until days later.

In New Orleans, more people died every hour on Tuesday. If Bush had canceled his regular events, ended his vacation even Tuesday morning and gotten to work knocking bureaucratic heads together, he would not be facing this criticism from me.

Spin away, if you can.

[Spock]

gee I hope he didn't use the lavatory and waste more time , get real.

[Ben]

Well, that was quick spin on your part . That took what, all of 30 seconds?

Sorry, your glib comments just don't cut it. Does anyone else besides Spock feel that Bush's use of time on Tuesday was appropriate or excusable?

Even if the president of the United States holds no sway within his administration and could not have done anything to help (which I don't buy), going about your usual public schedule in the face of a 9/11-like catastrophe is inexcusable.

It sent the message that he was more interested in country music than New Orleans. This is not about one event. This is about the attitude of the man who is charged with leading our country.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by bmilder

Well, that was quick spin on your part . That took what, all of 30 seconds?

Sorry, your glib comments just don't cut it. Does anyone else besides Spock feel that Bush's use of time on Tuesday was appropriate or excusable?

Even if the president of the United States holds no sway within his administration and could not have done anything to help (which I don't buy), going about your usual public schedule in the face of a 9/11-like catastrophe is inexcusable.

It sent the message that he was more interested in country music than New Orleans. This is not about one event. This is about the attitude of the man who is charged with leading our country.

if nothing else, it show's a lack of decency... and if not that, a lack of simple common sense... it would have been very easy for him to cancel everything and rush down there, and good PR too... but i've never seen gwb as much of a "big picture" thinker... three more years /sigh

[Rían]

Originally Posted by bmilder

Not quite...

I was just reacting to the apparent atmosphere of there's no way for this guy to win - and I would hate that attitude no matter WHO is was directed against. That was my only point.

I truly hope some productive investigations take place!!!! and not just people using it for political face-time and things like that.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by bmilder

Well, that was quick spin on your part . That took what, all of 30 seconds?
Sorry, your glib comments just don't cut it. .

Tough cookies. He did his job and his job requires delegating. The state of disaster was declared TWO DAYS before the hurricane hit. He's not about sand bagging. He has other things to do, including recognizing those who helped free this country in war whether it's on the exact date or not it was a kind thing and the right thing to do.

He's never out of touch as communications are with him all the time. There simply wasn't anything more HE could personally do at the time.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by bmilder

Sorry, your glib comments just don't cut it. Does anyone else besides Spock feel that Bush's use of time on Tuesday was appropriate or excusable?

From what I've heard (which was not much, unfortunately), it seems to me that Bush could have done a much better job with his reactions. The president is an important symbol, and just being there means a lot to the American people. His being there may not have accomplished anything that some may see as concrete, but to me, encouraging people is a concrete thing.

[Ben]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I was just reacting to the apparent atmosphere of there's no way for this guy to win - and I would hate that attitude no matter WHO is was directed against. That was my only point.

Oh - that's understandable. I think there were plenty of chances last week for Bush, New Orleans, and the country to have won, if the president had acted with more urgency toward this catastrophe.

But now what's done is done. I suspect Bush may want to "win" in the PR sense by shifting blame to others. But in terms of what's best for the country, I think Bush could apologize for his slow reaction on Monday and Tuesday, fire Michael Brown at FEMA, and empanel a 9/11-style commission. Then everyone would win as much as possible at this point .

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if nothing else, it show's a lack of decency... and if not that, a lack of simple common sense... it would have been very easy for him to cancel everything and rush down there, and good PR too... but i've never seen gwb as much of a "big picture" thinker... three more years /sigh

What decency It was decent to have men, material and food enroute via direct commands to those in charge of programs. The State had to request the Federal Troops..they had their own Nat'l. Guard and DID NOTHING with them prior to the storm and even afterwards.
So you'd prefer PR, smoke and mirrors; a president sitting at his desk receiving, while we bomb a country? Oh, I forgot, you do.

[Rían]

(Ben, check my post above your last - I think we posted at the same time)

[Butterbeer]

well i'd like to know as Rian asked earlier ... what was the other (third contingency about?) New orleans hurricane, 9/11 and ... what???

with ref to Bush larking about with guitars while a vast disaster was unfolding .. and him never out of communication ... the perhaps more pertinent non partisan question might well be: what was he being told? If, as seems universally agreed the response was slow, badly organized and inept ... was the president over there actually being given any real information?

If so: then he is a tom-fool of a took and should throw himself down a well next time: if not: is he personally to blame?

this to me is the question: what, if any, communication was he getting at this point, bearing in mind the inept and unacceptable early response to this?