Hurricane Katrina

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

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.

nope, i'm just saying that if he cared he would have gone sooner... and even if he didn't care, he should have gone sooner for his own sake

please look at the timeline

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

was the president over there actually being given any real information?

A good question and one which probably won't be answered until all the investigations are done.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

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?

Nope. Decisions of this type are made by the organizations below the President. That office shouldn't have it's hands in the pie that much. Try to remember he did authorize what he could and the rest is up to those below to do.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

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

An ethereal response? Perhaps another choice of words?

[Butterbeer]

i edited that .... was meant to be 'early'

[Ben]

This thread is moving so fast! People are editing their messages as I respond to them!

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.

That's precisely what I was trying to say. Brownjenkins also expresses this point well. Many other countries have separate positions for ceremonial and substantive heads of state (presidents, prime ministers, royals, etc.). In America, Bush is both president and prime minister. He must lead by example and by policy.

When Bush was in NYC with the bullhorn, it brought America together. It seemed like he cared about what was happening. The president can be a very comforting figure for Americans just by being somewhere, or saying something. Much of what happens in politics is symbolic.

I was upset with the guitar picture because it signaled to me that the leader of our country didn't care what was going on in New Orleans. This was a scripted photo-op. As brownjenkins said so aptly - even if Bush didn't care what was going on, his crack team of political advisors should have known how much it would mean for the country and for the image of the president to immediately launch into action.

And guitars have nothing to do with VJ day.

With regard to the investigation - glad you agree. I think there may be a natural partisan impulse in career politicians - Republicans may want to cover for the president at all costs, and Democrats may want to skewer him at all costs. That's why the investigation should be done in a bipartisan, or nonpartisan way. I don't want Bush leading it, and I don't want Ted Kennedy leading it.

[Rían]

What this reminds me of is the response of the people of Great Britain over Princess Diana's death. It was very clear that many, many thousands of people were really grieving over it, and the Queen, IIRC, just stayed on vacation in Balmoral. There was a general feeling of the affected people that the Queen should cut short her vac and get back to Buck Pal - the headline was something like "Madam, your people need you!" It was a very touching cry from the heart, and shows the power of that position. (Note - the Queen couldn't even DO anything! Diana was "seriously dead", as my police friends say.)

IMO the same thing went on here - maybe a burly National Guardsman could schlep sandbags better than the President, but I think he should have come a lot sooner, because those people needed him (not as an individual, but as the head of their country) in the same way the grieving people in GB needed their Queen.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IMO the same thing went on here - maybe a burly National Guardsman could schlep sandbags better than the President, but I think he should have come a lot sooner, because those people needed him (not as an individual, but as the head of their country) in the same way the grieving people in GB needed their Queen.

I like this, what you say here, Rian. That's a good comparison you've made, it's true. I remember getting the same sense when Diana died, that whole thing about the Queen seeming so coldly blase about it, and how pissed off and sad the people were that she didn't openly comfort them right away after Di's death.

[Butterbeer]

fancy asking for a third time Rian? Go on.. it's your turn ...

maybe third time round someone will answer?

yeah, good analogy 'bout diana.... though don't know about needing the queen ... but yup as head of state (and Mother in law) she did have some duties....

[Ben]

That's an excellent analogy, Rian.

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?

The third catastrophe on FEMA's list in 2001 was a massive earthquake in San Francisco. So I really hope that FEMA, the Bush administration, Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the local officials in SF are now taking any preventative measures possible and working out the kinks in evacuation and relief plans, if they haven't done so already .

I'll get back to you on the federalism issue.

[Butterbeer]

Bmilder: thanks for answering that.

how's old arnie doing over there by the way? what's the general perception?

[Insidious Rex]

I think part of the problem was that Bush and his cabinet happened to be scattered about various places and with Bush on his own like that you tend to have some delayed reaction to events. When Chaney or Rice or someone is sharing the same building at that time then you often get some quick decisions made as to where the president should be and what he should do. Someone runs down the hall and starts saying we need to do this now. But if im not mistaken all the big players were scattered here and there busy with other projects on that fateful day so quick instant decisions were not forthcoming.

[Ben]

Those "relieve the rich" laws that have been passed have been good for the economy and for society as a whole. - Lief

A general discussion of the merits of supply-side economics would be best suited for another thread. However, whether or not deep tax cuts are good policy for creating jobs, I think it's pretty clear that they're not effective for dealing with national catastrophes.

Although I suppose people could use part of their tax refunds to donate to the Red Cross, in almost all cases the American taxpayers could not directly aid the people of New Orleans. There are many stories of FEMA turning away highly-skilled individuals and groups - I can provide details if you'd like.

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative writer for the conservative National Review, allows the following about different economic philosophies:

For years, Democrats complained that we needed to spend more on "first-responders." I took this for what it often was: an attempt to pad municipal budgets with pork. But, one must concede it wasn't entirely about that either. And while it's likely this disaster would have presented many if not most of the challenges we're seeing this week, even if all that money had been spent as the Democrats wanted, it remains hard to dispute that it would have been better spent than much of the garbage in recent budgets.

Now, I think that in a conservative zeal for shrinking government and cutting waste, they seem to have cut too much (see one of my previous posts for specifics). I think it's a fair criticism to say that some of the money returned to the taxpayers should have been used for disaster preparation. Tax cuts, combined with the usual pork and spending that both parties have engaged in, left precious little wiggle room for creative solutions or federal funds for the doomed Big Easy.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think part of the problem was .......

Oh, you'll hear about this now , we practically agree and the wolves are at the door.

[Lief Erikson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RÃ*an
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?



All I ever hear is criticism of the federal government. Perhaps people are criticizing Louisiana too, but I haven't heard it.

According to state law, only the governor of Louisiana can call in the National Guard. However, after the catastrophe, Louisiana's governor did not call martial law for some time.

As has been pointed out by others on this thread also, it does actually take some days for the National Guard to move into a situation. The move into Iraq may have been done in twenty-four hours, but it was planned and practiced for months before the move was executed.

As I recall, our main tsunami relief actually did take some time before it got to the disaster zones in the affected regions as well. I'd have to come back with some real data on that, however.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

As I pointed out in earlier posts, the same problem was facing New Orleans from a category 5 hurricane while Clinton was president, and he did not resolve the issue. He got lucky. Katrina wasn't his term. I heard from a National Geographic video made during Clinton's term that a category 5 hurricane could swamp New Orleans' levees and drown the city, killing thousands. The federal government made the same "mistakes" in previous administrations, and I don't really think one can blame Republican policy for this. Democratic policy on New Orleans would not have saved the city from Katrina either.

I don't have time to respond to your posts here tonight, bmilder. They'll take some thought and perhaps a bit of research. Another time .

[Spock]

[Tree Dweller]

I was wondering if anyone here has considered taking any hurricane survivors into their home.

My husband and I considered it since we have a great number of them that evacuted to our city. But I have to say that we both have mixed feeling about it.


Opinions???

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I pointed out in earlier posts, the same problem was facing New Orleans from a category 5 hurricane while Clinton was president, and he did not resolve the issue. He got lucky. Katrina wasn't his term. I heard from a National Geographic video made during Clinton's term that a category 5 hurricane could swamp New Orleans' levees and drown the city, killing thousands. The federal government made the same "mistakes" in previous administrations, and I don't really think one can blame Republican policy for this. Democratic policy on New Orleans would not have saved the city from Katrina either.

it's not necessarily partisan in my eyes... bush is president now... he also has the precedent of 9/11 about how much we needed improvement in the disaster-planning area... times change and officials should be expected to also

on requesting federal help... look at the timeline, it was asked for before the hurricane even arrived, yet implementation was very slow:

Friday, August 26
GOV. KATHLEEN BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA: [Office of the Governor]

GULF COAST STATES REQUEST TROOP ASSISTANCE FROM PENTAGON: At a 9/1 press conference, Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, commander, Joint Task Force Katrina, said that the Gulf States began the process of requesting additional forces on Friday, 8/26. [DOD]

Saturday, August 27
5AM — KATRINA UPGRADED TO CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE [CNN]

GOV. BLANCO ASKS BUSH TO DECLARE FEDERAL STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA: “I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster.� [Office of the Governor]

FEDERAL EMERGENCY DECLARED, DHS AND FEMA GIVEN FULL AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO KATRINA: “Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.� [White House]

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I recall, our main tsunami relief actually did take some time before it got to the disaster zones in the affected regions as well. I'd have to come back with some real data on that, however.

Actually we had boots on the ground in remote tsunami effected regions in 24 hours. And that was on the other side of the world. Although I think the first to arrive were soldiers who came from the Pacific. But still. New Orleans is just a few hours from most points in the US by airplane. So I dont really think you can use the Tsunami as justification for taking forever to get to New Orleans.

[Spock]

hmm, the airport wasn't working. troops aren't relief and how do you get to a city that's go no place to land.
just some thoughts, although I know none will score points.

[brownjenkins]

it was working on friday and saturday... preemptive measures maybe?

this would be something we have not done in the past (any administration for that matter) ... but maybe a thought for the future

[Spock]

but that's the problem, the STATE had two days advanced Disaster status and COULD have done something....but didn't.