Mayor Nagin says to feds: 'Get off your asses' [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Mr-Blonde

09-02-2005, 01:58 PM

source: CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/nagin.transcript/index.html)

Transcript of radio interview with New Orleans' Nagin

Friday, September 2, 2005; Posted: 11:49 a.m. EDT

(CNN) -- New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin blasted the slow pace of federal and state relief efforts in an expletive-laced interview with local radio station WWL-AM.

The following is a transcript of WWL correspondent Garland Robinette's interview with Nagin on Thursday night. Robinette asked the mayor about his conversation with President Bush:

NAGIN: I told him we had an incredible crisis here and that his flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice. And that I have been all around this city, and I am very frustrated because we are not able to marshal resources and we're outmanned in just about every respect. (Listen to the mayor express his frustration in this video -- 12:09)

You know the reason why the looters got out of control? Because we had most of our resources saving people, thousands of people that were stuck in attics, man, old ladies. ... You pull off the doggone ventilator vent and you look down there and they're standing in there in water up to their freaking necks.

And they don't have a clue what's going on down here. They flew down here one time two days after the doggone event was over with TV cameras, AP reporters, all kind of goddamn -- excuse my French everybody in America, but I am pissed.

WWL: Did you say to the president of the United States, "I need the military in here"?

NAGIN: I said, "I need everything."

Now, I will tell you this -- and I give the president some credit on this -- he sent one John Wayne dude down here that can get some stuff done, and his name is [Lt.] Gen. [Russel] Honore.

And he came off the doggone chopper, and he started cussing and people started moving. And he's getting some stuff done.

They ought to give that guy -- if they don't want to give it to me, give him full authority to get the job done, and we can save some people.

WWL: What do you need right now to get control of this situation?

NAGIN: I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. We ain't talking about -- you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out here.

I'm like, "You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans."

That's -- they're thinking small, man. And this is a major, major, major deal. And I can't emphasize it enough, man. This is crazy.

I've got 15,000 to 20,000 people over at the convention center. It's bursting at the seams. The poor people in Plaquemines Parish. ... We don't have anything, and we're sharing with our brothers in Plaquemines Parish.

It's awful down here, man.

WWL: Do you believe that the president is seeing this, holding a news conference on it but can't do anything until [Louisiana Gov.] Kathleen Blanco requested him to do it? And do you know whether or not she has made that request?

NAGIN: I have no idea what they're doing. But I will tell you this: You know, God is looking down on all this, and if they are not doing everything in their power to save people, they are going to pay the price. Because every day that we delay, people are dying and they're dying by the hundreds, I'm willing to bet you.

We're getting reports and calls that are breaking my heart, from people saying, "I've been in my attic. I can't take it anymore. The water is up to my neck. I don't think I can hold out." And that's happening as we speak.

You know what really upsets me, Garland? We told everybody the importance of the 17th Street Canal issue. We said, "Please, please take care of this. We don't care what you do. Figure it out."

WWL: Who'd you say that to?

NAGIN: Everybody: the governor, Homeland Security, FEMA. You name it, we said it.

And they allowed that pumping station next to Pumping Station 6 to go under water. Our sewage and water board people ... stayed there and endangered their lives.

And what happened when that pumping station went down, the water started flowing again in the city, and it starting getting to levels that probably killed more people.

In addition to that, we had water flowing through the pipes in the city. That's a power station over there.

So there's no water flowing anywhere on the east bank of Orleans Parish. So our critical water supply was destroyed because of lack of action.

WWL: Why couldn't they drop the 3,000-pound sandbags or the containers that they were talking about earlier? Was it an engineering feat that just couldn't be done?

NAGIN: They said it was some pulleys that they had to manufacture. But, you know, in a state of emergency, man, you are creative, you figure out ways to get stuff done.

Then they told me that they went overnight, and they built 17 concrete structures and they had the pulleys on them and they were going to drop them.

I flew over that thing yesterday, and it's in the same shape that it was after the storm hit. There is nothing happening. And they're feeding the public a line of bull and they're spinning, and people are dying down here.

WWL: If some of the public called and they're right, that there's a law that the president, that the federal government can't do anything without local or state requests, would you request martial law?

NAGIN: I've already called for martial law in the city of New Orleans. We did that a few days ago.

WWL: Did the governor do that, too?

NAGIN: I don't know. I don't think so.

But we called for martial law when we realized that the looting was getting out of control. And we redirected all of our police officers back to patrolling the streets. They were dead-tired from saving people, but they worked all night because we thought this thing was going to blow wide open last night. And so we redirected all of our resources, and we hold it under check.

I'm not sure if we can do that another night with the current resources.

And I am telling you right now: They're showing all these reports of people looting and doing all that weird stuff, and they are doing that, but people are desperate and they're trying to find food and water, the majority of them.

Now you got some knuckleheads out there, and they are taking advantage of this lawless -- this situation where, you know, we can't really control it, and they're doing some awful, awful things. But that's a small majority of the people. Most people are looking to try and survive.

And one of the things people -- nobody's talked about this. Drugs flowed in and out of New Orleans and the surrounding metropolitan area so freely it was scary to me, and that's why we were having the escalation in murders. People don't want to talk about this, but I'm going to talk about it.

You have drug addicts that are now walking around this city looking for a fix, and that's the reason why they were breaking in hospitals and drugstores. They're looking for something to take the edge off of their jones, if you will.

And right now, they don't have anything to take the edge off. And they've probably found guns. So what you're seeing is drug-starving crazy addicts, drug addicts, that are wrecking havoc. And we don't have the manpower to adequately deal with it. We can only target certain sections of the city and form a perimeter around them and hope to God that we're not overrun.

WWL: Well, you and I must be in the minority. Because apparently there's a section of our citizenry out there that thinks because of a law that says the federal government can't come in unless requested by the proper people, that everything that's going on to this point has been done as good as it can possibly be.

NAGIN: Really?

WWL: I know you don't feel that way.

NAGIN: Well, did the tsunami victims request? Did it go through a formal process to request?

You know, did the Iraqi people request that we go in there? Did they ask us to go in there? What is more important?

And I'll tell you, man, I'm probably going get in a whole bunch of trouble. I'm probably going to get in so much trouble it ain't even funny. You probably won't even want to deal with me after this interview is over.

WWL: You and I will be in the funny place together.

NAGIN: But we authorized $8 billion to go to Iraq lickety-quick. After 9/11, we gave the president unprecedented powers lickety-quick to take care of New York and other places.

Now, you mean to tell me that a place where most of your oil is coming through, a place that is so unique when you mention New Orleans anywhere around the world, everybody's eyes light up -- you mean to tell me that a place where you probably have thousands of people that have died and thousands more that are dying every day, that we can't figure out a way to authorize the resources that we need? Come on, man.

You know, I'm not one of those drug addicts. I am thinking very clearly.

And I don't know whose problem it is. I don't know whether it's the governor's problem. I don't know whether it's the president's problem, but somebody needs to get their ass on a plane and sit down, the two of them, and figure this out right now.

WWL: What can we do here?

NAGIN: Keep talking about it.

WWL: We'll do that. What else can we do?

NAGIN: Organize people to write letters and make calls to their congressmen, to the president, to the governor. Flood their doggone offices with requests to do something. This is ridiculous.

I don't want to see anybody do anymore goddamn press conferences. Put a moratorium on press conferences. Don't do another press conference until the resources are in this city. And then come down to this city and stand with us when there are military trucks and troops that we can't even count.

Don't tell me 40,000 people are coming here. They're not here. It's too doggone late. Now get off your asses and do something, and let's fix the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country.

WWL: I'll say it right now, you're the only politician that's called and called for arms like this. And if -- whatever it takes, the governor, president -- whatever law precedent it takes, whatever it takes, I bet that the people listening to you are on your side.

NAGIN: Well, I hope so, Garland. I am just -- I'm at the point now where it don't matter. People are dying. They don't have homes. They don't have jobs. The city of New Orleans will never be the same in this time.

WWL: We're both pretty speechless here.

NAGIN: Yeah, I don't know what to say. I got to go.

WWL: OK. Keep in touch. Keep in touch.

------------------------

So it appears that thanks to Bush's wars the National Guard in Louisiana is overstretched, underequipped, and undermanned. meanwhile more people are dying in New Orleans by the hour with no food, water, or medical supplies.

The question that needs to be asked is would an emergency response have taken so long in an affluent white community. Can you imagine the outrage if say Beverly Hills got hit by a Class 5 storm and it took this long to mobilize a response?

someguy

09-02-2005, 02:22 PM

One thing caught me off guard here, the interview is profanity laced?!? Who the fuck wrote this article, someone from the 20s?

This whole issue is going to make George W look even worse to the public, I won't be surprised if his approval rating is a record low now.

MacReady

09-02-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by someguy
This whole issue is going to make George W look even worse to the public, I won't be surprised if his approval rating is a record low now.

You've likely already seen this, but for those who haven't:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7582/cb4uk.jpg

and this was before the hurricane.

Lynn7

09-02-2005, 03:15 PM

this is so amazing- before the hurricane, people were being warned to get out and lots of people just refused to go. They figured the hurricane would blow off like others had. They said, no, no, this is the real deal- GET OUT. Then one person in charge (maybe a police chief) said, those who are the die hards are going to die hard. Now this. What a suprise.

These people who stayed behind were warned and they now face the consequences and blame others. The entire city is built below sea level from what I understand. Is it even wise to rebuild it at this point? It will only happen again. At the very least the city should be redesigned so people aren't living there.

If Bush's poll numbers are down then I blame him cause he too rarely comes out to talk about what is going on. He needs to communicate more.

Mr-Blonde

09-02-2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
this is so amazing- before the hurricane, people were being warned to get out and lots of people just refused to go. They figured the hurricane would blow off like others had. They said, no, no, this is the real deal- GET OUT. Then one person in charge (maybe a police chief) said, those who are the die hards are going to die hard. Now this. What a suprise.

These people who stayed behind were warned and they now face the consequences and blame others. The entire city is built below sea level from what I understand. Is it even wise to rebuild it at this point? It will only happen again. At the very least the city should be redesigned so people aren't living there.

Okay-- this is asanine thinking. Did you even stop to consider that many of these folks are too poor to even own cars let alone had somewhere else to go? The hurricane and it's aftermath is nobody's fault.(although an argument can be made against Bush for his environmental policies) The slow response however is entirely the government's fault. Don't blame these folks who had nowehere else to go!

The Postmaster General

09-02-2005, 08:29 PM

My friend in NO had no car, and was able to find strangers who took him to Pennsicola (with his pet goat)

Now, he is also a really smooth talker who can make friends.

I don't think everyone has it that well off.

it wasn't exxactly like the government went in and started bussing people out.

Not to mention the people who DID leave and still got screwed further North, because of the shitty levies.

Lynn7

09-02-2005, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Okay-- this is asanine thinking. Did you even stop to consider that many of these folks are too poor to even own cars let alone had somewhere else to go? The hurricane and it's aftermath is nobody's fault.(although an argument can be made against Bush for his environmental policies) The slow response however is entirely the government's fault. Don't blame these folks who had nowehere else to go!

I would go along with your statement if I hadn't been watching the news for 2 days before the hurricane struck where it showed people refusing to leave. The newscasters were interviewing them and they were all blowing it off. Its like the nuts who go out surfing during the preliminary hurricane and then drown.

Well, the poor people might have been at a disadvantage to get very far but many of them could've walked at least out of immediate danger. And then there is the photo on Yahoo where it shows hundreds of school buses under water with the question, why didn't the mayor have those buses take the people out of the danger zones- Instead they are probably all ruined. A lot of what has happened is because people made bad judgements and now they are looking for someone to blame. And what about those poor looters taking the big screen tvs out of Walmart. Couldn't anyone say something about how they are running around stealing when they could be helping to rescue people. It's pretty sickening.
Also, you will never get me to believe there was no where else to go.As long s there are churches on this earth there will be places to go.

The Postmaster General

09-02-2005, 09:36 PM

Lynn - Have you ever had to leave everything you ever worked for behind? It's not an easy thing to do. You make it sound like we should have little sympathy for these people because they "knew what they were getting into." Well, what about Coallition soldiers in Iraq? Are they also uneligible for sympathy because they should have known they could get hurt?

My grandfather had to leave his home, and it was hard for him. People can't see why they should leave, despite having obvious reasons why - reasons that are in their face.

Emotions overpower rational thought -- like when asked to leave everything you own behind you. Just look at those people who booed that pro-war guy out of the pro-war rally because they wouldn't think long enough to see things for what they were.

notchreturns

09-03-2005, 01:16 AM

It shouldn't be about whether the people left or not. They were given a choice and they acted on it and were dealt with the consequences, none of which should have been left to survive on rooftops, highway bridges and cartops with 10-15 feet of water of who knows what beneath them.

Now it's the job of our leaders job to act on the aftermath and as you've seen if you watch TV, it's been quite the shit job.

outsyder

09-03-2005, 03:52 AM

New Orleans: Live here at your own risk.

It's 10 feet below sea level and is located in an area prone to hurricane attacks. The levee system has been outdated for 30+ years. Please don't say this flooding comes as a surprise. It it didn't happen on monday, it would have happened eventually.

JohnTheHenchman

09-03-2005, 04:27 AM

Why should this make George W look worse?

If you ask me, the state and local governments are those who dropped the ball

Criminal Rock

09-03-2005, 05:47 AM

John's right, the state had no indication that they knew what they were doing; no calls were made after the hurricane struck; it was basically anarchy for three days because of it.

Mr-Blonde

09-03-2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by outsyder
New Orleans: Live here at your own risk.

It's 10 feet below sea level and is located in an area prone to hurricane attacks. The levee system has been outdated for 30+ years. Please don't say this flooding comes as a surprise. It it didn't happen on monday, it would have happened eventually.

Levee systems that they in fact had been trying to improve for years but for some reason lost the federal funding. Where did the funding go? Into "homeland security" and this atrorcious war effort. Why has the effort to revitalize the wetlands that in the past had acted as a buffer for incoming hurricanes gone virtually ignored by the feds?

Since everyone had predicted that this kind of thing would eventually happen here, why wasn't the funding made available by the feds to shore up the levee sytems and the coastal wetlands?

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 11:39 AM

The state official who's job it is to monitor all this stuff pleaded for the funding in 2004 and was denied.

He didn't drop the ball - the ball deflated.

outsyder

09-03-2005, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The state official who's job it is to monitor all this stuff pleaded for the funding in 2004 and was denied.

He didn't drop the ball - the ball deflated.

So they only started pleading for funding in 2004?

electriclite

09-03-2005, 02:57 PM

Okay, what people aren't aware of is that FEMA was swallowed into the department of Homeland Security, its funding was cut and is headed by a man who had absolutely no prior experience in disaster situations. Recipe for disaster right there.

The people who did not leave were POOR. Meaning they could not afford cars, and if they did they couldn't afford the gas it took get out of harm's way, second they also didn't want their homes to be looted, third most of these people don't have families or friends outside of Louisiana to stay with. This scenario should have been accounted for, its called good pre-planning.

Now, coming from someone who has actually lived in an area that is prone to hurricanes, and went through Hurricane Andrew in 1992, that pretty much leveled Homestead, let me help make something clear: If you live in an area prone to hurricanes, you are always preparing for any hurricane that can come, whether it’s a category 1 or 5. Because even a tropical depression can cause serious flooding, I should know, it happened to my family and the water around our apartment went up to our waists and my mother’s car was ruined. However FEMA was able to respond to that considerably smaller “disaster” expeditiously compared to this mess.

And if New Orleans is asking for money, and it is an area that is must vulnerable to flooding during a hurricane, then they should get money easier. If they asked for money in 2004 then they should have gotten money in 2004. If it was only a matter of time before something like this happened, then they should’ve received that money faster. Why the foot dragging? If the city was a disaster waiting to happen, then why was it so hard to get money to better prepare it?

Because somebody doesn’t have the funding, because its going to tax cuts and a war.

Anyone who has ever had bills to pay knows this strategy behind this behavior. A guy is starving and has had very little to eat. Why doesn’t he just buy food? Because he needs the money to pay his other bills.

The funds aren’t there people, and I think this is finally the kick in the ass for America to show them that the Bush tax cuts aren’t helping anybody, and what happened in the south proves that they’re actually HURTING people.

Look at the ridiculously slow response time by the government to get help down there! Not only were they slow to help the city BEFORE there was a threat of a hurricane but now they’re dragging their feet AFTER the disaster!

Five days! Like a day after hurricane Andrew hit and devastated Homestead the National Guard was already there! This is unacceptable. This is another example of this government’s inability to properly pre-plan for any kind of event!

In the words of Bill Maher last night: This is Bush’s Waterloo.

JohnTheHenchman

09-03-2005, 03:19 PM

Actually I knew that about FEMA.

Being poor doesn't bean they couldn't have left. Last I checked, poor people have legs. If I was in their position I would have ran.

electriclite

09-03-2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Actually I knew that about FEMA.

Being poor doesn't bean they couldn't have left. Last I checked, poor people have legs. If I was in their position I would have ran.

And you would've ran into a hurricane.

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by outsyder
So they only started pleading for funding in 2004?

2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000....

You know as well as I do that no one knows when the "big one" will come, and who is to say if previous officials haven't been up to par. When we are talking about why they didn't evacuate, "Oh they can't take chances. they knew the big one could be coming. Maybe it won't, but they should have prepared." but when we talk about them asking for funding in the past in order to prepare for an arbitarily timed disaster: "They could have asked sooner."

I don't even know if they decided to ask for it because maybe they came across new evidence that they were weakening. Maybe it was just time to fix them...

And I don't know if they only started pleading for it in 2004. That was a recent item I'd come across.

I don't think the history of how long they'd wanted it really matters either way. It didn't take feds very long at all to get the plans in motion for us to do a lot of things that cost an uncomparable amount more than fix basic structures. I only mentioned the date because I wanted to note that this was brought up before the fact, and not a "Well, I said" sort of thing someone was pulling.

American media bomblasted on about how unprepared the countries were for the Tsunami's, saying how they could have used this warning system. All the time you heard America praised as being so un-Third World, with just enough enthusiasm that any other side could have deemed it as arrogant. And here we are, fucking damns breaking (I'm being colorful, not technical here...) -- We could of had beavers fix that stuff --- It was chump change the price for taking care of this sort of buisiness. And it wasn't taken care of. What's the point of how long they had to do it. Their excuse is they were planning on writing a check tomorrow? People bitch and moan about things like netflix taking too long to send movies, then when we are talking about things like this, we are willing to give a little.

And I only assumed you were making a contrary point with the question outsyder.

electiclite made me think of something else --- The media was going on, and on, BEFOREHAND about how there could be looting. That's another reason people stayed - excellent point. They are seeing on the TV how everything is going ot be missing.

And shooting at the helicopters --- I am taking a different opinion on this.

Have you heard any of the interviews where people were trapped, and waving down helicopters, getting no response --- Yeah, maybe shooting a gun off is a good way to get some attention. Maybe they are too FUCKING FREAKED OUT THAT EVERYTHING THEY OWN IS UNDERWATER to think for a second that their actions are being taken as hostility. Maybe they are pissed off.

There's two sides to every story. I hear this shit about how cold the world is - look at the way people are acting in New Orleans. Well, another reason the world is so cold is because people look at New Orleans and everything is immediately thought of as the worst. No one even TRIES for a nanosecond to think about the other side.

Maybe I'm wrong about why they were shooting. Maybe I'm right. Maybe wrong in some situations, right in others. The point of the matter is that our country is supposed to stand for something more than that, and people spit all over it in order to thumb a nose up at people who are in the middle of 3rd world countries, or in NO case - a 3rd world situation. In the meantime it's the people who roll in dough that get stood up for and defended - the people who are already being taken care for.

JohnTheHenchman

09-03-2005, 03:24 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

but those couldn't have been used for anything :rolleyes:

JohnTheHenchman

09-03-2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by electriclite
And you would've ran into a hurricane.

Running away from it?

With the notice given? If I left the day they told every one too I'm sure I would have been far from it

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

but those couldn't have been used for anything :rolleyes:

They keep the water seperated from the city, not necessarily prevent flooding.

In the rare instances when water does rise above, a job of a levee is to open up and allow the water to be flushed back out.

Once they are repaired, they can begin pumping the water out of the city, and start getting things in order. If the levees were in proper working order, this can be accomplish in a fraction of the time. (http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-09-03-voa2.cfm)

The entire problem here isn't that there was a fucking natural disaster. No one can stop that. The problem is that things aren't working right during a natrual disaster.

JohnTheHenchman

09-03-2005, 03:49 PM

Did you look at the picture?

Lots of buses. That could have helped evacuate those with no other means. lol

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 03:51 PM

lol

Sorry for missing that one - it looked like houses from where I was.

That's whacked.

electriclite

09-03-2005, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Running away from it?

With the notice given? If I left the day they told every one too I'm sure I would have been far from it

And where were you going to stay once you "out ran" the storm?

Remember you're poor.

Not to mention, what about if you had family still there who couldn't pull a Forrest Gump and run across the state?

Anyway this isa pointless argument. You're thinking of this as "JohntheHenchman's situtation being in the New Orleans". You're not thinking "JohntheHenchman being in the situation of the people who stayed in New Orleans."

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 04:05 PM

Yeah, one thing that people are forgetting - the people who evacuated got fucked too, because of the levee systems breaking.

Criminal Rock

09-03-2005, 04:15 PM

If I can buy a car for 800 dollars, and pay 60 dollars a month on car insurance and my income is much LESS then about 98% of the entire country, a person has no excuse when it comes to owning a vehicle because it isn’t that hard.

I can almost guarantee that most people who stayed did so because they didn’t want to leave, not because they couldn’t afford a car… why they didn’t want to leave is arguable, I believe bubba and some other schomes touched on that shit. I’ve seen it in other threads, and I’m sick and tired of ‘these black people are poor, and can’t afford cars’ bull.

Criminal Rock

09-03-2005, 04:21 PM

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I live on my own, I pay for everything, while going to school full time. So its not like I live with my parents or anything.

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 04:29 PM

Criminal Rock

09-03-2005, 04:46 PM

You mean I touched on the "car shit"?

I've also touched on other things like what you said - them just not wanting to leave. So, in lieu of that, it wouldn't be appreciated having you single me out by name as the purveyor of "shit", if I thought for a moment you were meaning it personally. I don't. I just think you are confused, and made that there are some answers to your questions.

And what do you mean you make less than 98% of the country? Do you have any clue as to what the bottom 2% income is? Didn't you say one time that you are 18 years old? You have access to a computer, and internet access. I know that much too. The top 2% of the poorest people are made up mostly of the homeless, not 18 year old kids with computer access and a car. This could only get better if you told me you were enrolled in college fulltime, because that means you are tax exempt, and are uncomparable to working people. (Oh - Yeah, I see you wanted to mention you are... Well, I've never heard it denied that school is a privilage.)

I watch the show COPS and all the time they are rescuing people who got themselves into situations. Drunk dudes who tried to cross a flood and got their vehicle stuck and were trying to rescue it. That's what they are supposed to do, and yeah they are doing that. But there is no arguement against them not doing it because people made mistakes for what ever reason.

First of all, I said you’ve touched on reasons why they wouldn’t want to leave, not about why they don’t own a car.

When I said 98%, I was exaggerating… a lot actually. I was trying to make it clear that I wasn’t wealthy, I wasn’t speaking in literal terms. I’m poor, there’s nothing else to it.

I don’t understand, what’s so hard to believe?

I use my parents computer is Gilbert, while I live in Mesa in an apartment with a friend. We don’t have TV or the Internet.

I could scan you a copy of all my bills, my school and work schedule, my FASFA stuff, and other government loans, but that would be stupid on my part. (I’m not saying you would stalk me or anything, but others might…)

I’m telling the facts about my life and comparing them to what’s going on in New Orleans, nothing more… so don’t take it personally because I wasn’t speaking to you, but to all.

EDIT: i moved out after my first year of college, the begining of this year, then moved back in with my parents. A couple of months later, I moved in with my friend andrew to an apartment where I've been living there for 4 and a half months.

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
When I said 98%, I was exaggerating… a lot actually. I was trying to make it clear that I wasn’t wealthy, I wasn’t speaking in literal terms. I’m poor, there’s nothing else to it.

I don’t understand, what’s so hard to believe?

I use my parents computer is Gilbert, while I live in Mesa in an apartment with a friend. We don’t have TV or the Internet.

I could scan you a copy of all my bills, my school and work schedule, my FASFA stuff, and other government loans, but that would be stupid on my part. (I’m not saying you would stalk me or anything, but others might…)

I’m telling the facts about my life and comparing them to what’s going on in New Orleans, nothing more… so don’t take it personally because I wasn’t speaking to you, but to all.

EDIT: i moved out after my first year of college, the begining of this year, then moved back in with my parents. A couple of months later, I moved in with my friend andrew to an apartment where I've been living there for 4 and a half months.

I'm not denying you are having a tough time getting yourself through school, but the simple fact that you are in school speaks for something.

You are comparing yourself, a guy who just moved out on his own, with people with kids, debts (not counting student loan debts that you pay back after graduation), and all of the other things that you will experience later in life and say, "Man, I miss being in college."

I've been there too, and at the time, I felt poor as fuck. So poor that I was on food stamps for 3 months - but I'm not going to justify the reasons I was, and am admitedly embarrassed revealing this, but I think it's good to come clean. All I'm saying was that even being someone who was on government assistance, I didn't realize how I wasn't anywhere near as bad off as all the people until I stood next to them in line - people with babies and shit. Me trying to compare myself to these people who were largely uneducated - it was laughable and just plain blind, and something I didn't feel right about doing any longer.

There is hope for you Tai Mai, you are at the start of your life. You can't compare yourself to these people who have already signed off on the fact that they probably aren't going to have the slice of pie. Okay, things are rough for you -- I know, man. Ramen Noodles fucking suck, and they give me the shits, but it's better than not having money for books and socks. You can't work as much as you want because you need to study, and when you do find a flexible job, you're now tired in class. Parking fees, security deposits, laundry fees, dining hall, and so on -- but you are still in a good position. You should respect that much about yourself and not even begin comparing yourself to the bottom 2% of the US incomes, because exaggerating or not - it's far fetched, and just no where near to being true.

You may look around and see other kids in your school with nicer clothes, able to have nicer cars, paying for expensive activities, clubs and organizations - You may think, "They are rich." The truth of the matter is - they are in the same position as you. It is their parents who are rich. College life is tax exempt for a darn good reason. No one expects anything out of you except that you stay in school. Everyone I know who gets out of school wishes they could go back in because it's like floating through life in comparison to the real financial demands you will find later on.

Believe what you will, but please don't foget me in 10 years, and don't forget the good times we've shared with this discussion. Whether or not your struggling to get by, or living like king of the frat house - things are better for you than they are for the people in New Orleans.

Maybe it's just me though - I've worked with the homeless, people on food stamps, and people who were just plain unable to work -- I've been doing this for nearly 8 years after school. It's kind of like how I used to think I was a whacky guy before I started working with people that have mental illnesses --- Everything is about perspective, and maybe I just have too much - maybe I've surrounded myself too much around those people who really are at the bottom 2% that it's hard for me to understand what normal/poor ever was -- but even me: earning 1,280 dollars in income in 1994, and having to drop my classes because my scholarship was held up, then consequentially losing it because I dropped my classes, and falling back on the aid of the government because I was too paniced to see that I had decades ahead of me to turn it around --- I was maybe poor, but I can't say it was a real life barrior like it would be if I was making 1,200 a year now.

Talk this one out with me man. I'm not trying to deny you are havng rough times, I'm just mentioning that if you think it's tough at 18, it['s only going to get tougher.

And PS - I understand any loss of respect I may experience because of admiting I was on government assistance, but it was something that helped me decide to focus my life on helping others. I've never denied or been ashamed of where I've come from in life.

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 10:10 PM

You know - the experiences in my life don't work for much when my memory is shit. (Seriously - say no, kids.....)

I forgot this entirely ---

In Florida, on Siesta Key, Sanibel, many places that are wealthy - It was mandatory evavuation. The police when in and forced you from your home. Even these people didn't understand why they should leave -- -but in that instance, we can see the government doing what it's suppose to be doing, and the people were spared.

And speaking of Florida - Has anyone heard much from Jeb? I mean, he did go over and lend his "expertise" to the Tsunami countries.

ADDITIONALLY, my mom says that there is a lot in Venice with probably close to 300 FEMA trailers that wree left over from last year. She expected them to be gone by Tuesday, but no, she says, still just sitting there.

No, this is not being handled right. And currently a top advisor in England has come forward saying that this was totally uncalled for and that America could have done better. I think this is only the start of our criticism.

Lynn7

09-03-2005, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Lynn - Have you ever had to leave everything you ever worked for behind? It's not an easy thing to do. You make it sound like we should have little sympathy for these people because they "knew what they were getting into." Well, what about Coallition soldiers in Iraq? Are they also uneligible for sympathy because they should have known they could get hurt?

My grandfather had to leave his home, and it was hard for him. People can't see why they should leave, despite having obvious reasons why - reasons that are in their face.

Emotions overpower rational thought -- like when asked to leave everything you own behind you. Just look at those people who booed that pro-war guy out of the pro-war rally because they wouldn't think long enough to see things for what they were.

as a matter of fact I have left everything behind and I realized an important lesson- it is not the possessions that give you happiness. When people lose everything in tornadoes etc they often say "but at least we are all alive and that is what is important". If these are poor people, then what are they leaving behind? They had a few days warning. Isn't it better to sleep outside then to get stuck in the deep polluted and contaminated waters of New Orleans? It is not cold in Louisiana-= people could have easitly walked, (camped) and gotten out of harms's way. Maybe there were some who could not have done this (the elderly and the kiddies and the sick). But so many just could not be bothered to leave and that is sad but there are consequences to that decision. The police were circulating around town BEGGING gpeople to leave. If some had needed help getting out they should have said someting before the phones went dead adn the police were gone.

The Postmaster General

09-03-2005, 10:17 PM

You still didn't say if it was easy to leave it behind, or wht the circumstances were. I honestly don't belive you if you say these were all easy decisions -- and I am also pointing out the fact that you are more educated than many of the people we are talking about. You would be surprised just how many people really have no concept about sea level - and if you think about it, can you imagine trying to explain to someone what essentially boils down to them living underwater?

Criminal Rock

09-04-2005, 12:54 AM

I appreciate your concern, most people wouldn’t take the time to write 800 words on my behalf… that’s really cool, man.

I also understand that its more probable then not that these people have it worse then I (fiscally speaking), you’re absolutely right on point…

having kids and 20,000 dollar debts are variables I can’t comprehend right now because it’s not a problem for me, I guess I over-looked that. On a serious note, being the kid is highly different the having one, which is the perspective I was looking at.

And PS - I understand any loss of respect I may experience because of admiting I was on government assistance, but it was something that helped me decide to focus my life on helping others. I've never denied or been ashamed of where I've come from in life.

Any loss of respect? … FROM TAI MAI JEW!?!?! Nuh-uh… my family and I lived off welfare until I was 17 years old (BTY I’m 19, not 18 ;) ), I know what its like having mac-n-cheese with meatloaf four nights in a row, it sucks. Respect doesn’t come from fiscal numbers in my book; the more you give, the more you get… I guess it implies suitably, I may be wrong. But no loss of respect.

The Postmaster General

09-04-2005, 02:08 AM

It's good to hear that things are working out for your family in a financial sense.

18... 19... Up until a few days ago when you mentioned something about your age, I had always pictured you drinking Wild Turkey and shooting at pigeons from your desk in between posts.

Now that image is ruined, but thankfully in place of it is a much more noble one.

Lynn7

09-04-2005, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
You still didn't say if it was easy to leave it behind, or wht the circumstances were. I honestly don't belive you if you say these were all easy decisions -- and I am also pointing out the fact that you are more educated than many of the people we are talking about. You would be surprised just how many people really have no concept about sea level - and if you think about it, can you imagine trying to explain to someone what essentially boils down to them living underwater?

Well, that is kind of the bottom line. A lot of these people are uneducated and it seems crazy that in this county people can be so without a clue. Free education and food for poor kids and shelter for poor kids are guaranteed and yet people end up like this. I attribute it to "the soft bigotry of low expectations". As kids are going to school they need to be taught to think and to reason and to make wise decisions and to analyze and etc etc. They need to be responsible and not to blame others for everything that goes wrong which is what is going on right now.

I find it very hard to even watch this stuff on tv cause although I feel horrible about what everyone is going through, I can't help but feel anger at the amount of hopelessness and helplessness from able bodied people. Just today i watched as a man (health worker?)was yelling for people to leave their flooded homes. He said, "the water is contaminated, it's very dangerous, you need to get your children out of here- it's very dangerous and the water won't be cleared out any time soon.". then he turned to the camera (shaking his head)and said "These people just don't want to leave their homes". He was totally perplexed and so was I. If these people who don't leave, get sick and die then whose fault is it????? It's just maddening.

The Postmaster General

09-04-2005, 01:21 PM

Okay, so you are able to see things for what they really are.

Let me see if I can take this to the next level of non-discriminatory compasision:

Just because they are blamming people, does that mean we have to blame them? Does that change things? Maybe some of the things are some people's fault, and other things are other people's fault, and most of this is nobody's fault.

It's nothing but "tit for tat" much of what's being said about these people. They are easy targets, sitting ducks. Maybe it's no one's fault, but the last thing these people need is to hear people screaming at them for fucking up. Maybe they will know better next time.

What if a homeless man threw shit at me, and I threw shit back, thinking I was defending myself -- you get what I'm saying. Would you think I was a mature and compassionate person if I responded like that, Lynn. Would you say, Oh that guy had it coming - or would you look at me and say, "That's fucking disgusting!" Okay, maybe you wouldn't say it like that....

Maybe these people are wrong for blamming people -- maybe. But I see why they are doing it -- they are pissed, and upset. Now, I also understand why you would blame them - you are upset about hearing them blame others.

But it escalates - It went from hearing the people complain, saying it was no one's fault. Then the people kept complaining, so we turn up the stakes - Okay then, it's your fault.

If they can't play the blame game, why should anyone else. If you ask me -- If I was stranded or some shit, I would get bored, maybe a bit nuts and start talking trash too. You know, I feel that these people at least have some reason to lash out like this. To me, this is all a king of the mountain type shit, and the pople in NO are being kicked off as they try to climb the mountain. It's all just playground shit really --- but again, it at least makese sense to me why they are lashing out against the fortunate (and that's all I see it as unfortunate hate the fortunate and they don't have the words or understanding to make it as such) But instead of turning a blind eye, and being I don't know - decent, to me -- these people on top see the people in NO stuggling for integrity and decency, saying what ever they can to express their anger -- and how do we react? We kick them while they are down.

You may yell at me, and you may insult me - but I'll be damned if I still refuse to listen. It's about people being brought together, not about taking things personally - and again, it makes sense to me why someone would start feeling down on themselves and feeling like no one cares when in NO. It seems much less appropriate for the people looking on to get defensive.

TheDeadWalk

09-04-2005, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Also, you will never get me to believe there was no where else to go.As long s there are churches on this earth there will be places to go.

Where do you go when the local churches are being evacuated, too? Seriously, how do you get from point A to point B, if point B is miles away? Do you WALK and hope the wind doesn't pick up?

NEW ORLEANS - To those who wonder why so many stayed behind when push came to water's mighty shove here, those who were trapped have a simple explanation: Their nickels and dimes and dollar bills simply didn't add up to stage a quick evacuation mission.

"We had one vehicle. A truck. I wanted my family to be together. They all couldn't fit in the truck. We had to decide on leaving family members -- or staying."

"Well, would they leave their grandparents and children behind? Look around and say, 'See you later'?" She gave a roll of the eyes behind the raised voice.

"It's hard to just get up and go when you don't have anything," Jermaine said.

"I don't own a car. Me and my wife, we travel by bus, public transportation."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9195946/

The Heart Collector

09-04-2005, 09:19 PM

Criminal Rock

09-04-2005, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
...I had always pictured you drinking Wild Turkey and shooting at pigeons from your desk in between posts...

Only on the weekends...

The Postmaster General

09-04-2005, 10:55 PM

TheDeadWalk

Where do you go when the local churches are being evacuated, too? Seriously, how do you get from point A to point B, if point B is miles away? Do you WALK and hope the wind doesn't pick up?

Yeah, or they are overcrowded already. I saw an image of a Red Cross van making these people leave their 9 year old poodle behind. Most people I know would have stayed with their dog. However I don't know anyone with a poodle.

<cue Dazed quote>

THC:
Try running with two kids and an elderly father.

Exactly. This is the kind of perspective it seems a wide selection of the country lacks.

TAI MAI:
Only on the weekends...

*looks at calendar*

Lynn7

09-05-2005, 02:55 PM

in my original post I said I could understnd it if there were kids, the elderly or the sick involved. But even with kids- I have kids and they could've walked miles. We humans are capable of walking when we need to- look around the world. The problem is that in our country we have become so dependent, waiting for the government to meet all of our needs and then when things fall apart and help does not come, we cry out in anger. People were problably thinking if they got into trouble that the firemen or police would come and help them and that the goveernment would give them food. That is OK if a few hundred people are involved but not on a large scale. These people were warned and should've taken themselves off.and if they were able bodied , they should have taken some of the weaker ones with them.

Maybe the mayor should've forbidden any cars to leave and just bussed everyone out, avoiding traffic jams etc. There was a least a 2 day warning where people should've taken themselves out of the immediacy of drowming.

TheDeadWalk

09-05-2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Maybe the mayor should've forbidden any cars to leave and just bussed everyone out, avoiding traffic jams etc. There was a least a 2 day warning where people should've taken themselves out of the immediacy of drowming.

This could not be enforced in a large scale city like New Orleans. There are just too many people (and cars) that would not be able to be controlled on such a large scale.

The Postmaster General

09-05-2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Maybe the mayor should've forbidden any cars to leave and just bussed everyone out, avoiding traffic jams etc. There was a least a 2 day warning where people should've taken themselves out of the immediacy of drowming.

You do realize that the hurricane had very little to do with the actual flooding. It had already passed when the dams broke -- many people were RETURNING to New Orleans because the hurricane had already passed.

The major evacuations began as a result of the levees breaking, not the hurricane - the hurricane evacuations told people to go to high ground This wasn't all the same thign that happened at the same time -- there were two events going on. When the levees broke, they ran out of high ground. When a dam breaks, you have seconds before your in the middle of a lake. You know that if you watch The Simpsons.

Not everyone was expecting the levees to break, and I don't blame them. I probably would have risked it too. But I don't understand why everyone is acting like this was all just one thing --- Like I said, the hurricane didn't do shit to NO - Mississippi, yeah -- But NO's problem was their system broke. (When I said did "shit", I mean in comparison to what actually happened....)

The theories about the flooding due to hurricane was that the storm surge would push water OVER the levees and flood the city, then the levees would be set to drain that water. Once the hurricane passed, most people thought everything was cool. Then the levees broke and -- oops! When you people are saying "Oh, they knew it would flood" -- That is what you are talking about. Flooding from the storm surge. The flooding that occured due to the levees bursting was a second problem, and much larger than they expected. Those levees were designed to stand at CAT5 hurricane, and i was CAT4 when it went through.

There has been a documentary on Discover about all of this - A lot of people sound like they need to watch it because I'm hearing a lot of timeline confusion, and it put things into a better perspective for me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4211404.stm

They didn't order full evacuation until the levees were breached, so even the mayor appears to have been surprised that the systems failed, or they would have ordered full evacuation sooner, and not just said "It could happen"

Lynn7

09-06-2005, 09:06 PM

On Meet the Press this week, Tim Russert read from an article that was written many years ago about how little it would take for the levees to break and what the devastation would be if this was to happen. The state and local officials should have known the damage that was possible and should've planned for it much better. The people should have goten out of town when the warnings first came but many thought they would just ride out the storm. As I said before, reporters were showing officials BEGGING people to leave and they discussed how the people just didn't care. They beleived the hurricane woudl pass them etc.

Mr-Blonde

09-06-2005, 10:46 PM

The truth of it is that those levees required serious improvements. They were old and antiquated. NO had not seen a hurricane since 1969 and I believe it was a Cat 4. The levees were designed to withstand a Cat 3!

They had been trying to get the feds to invest 14 billion (a drop in the bucket) into it to improve the sytem for years. But every year the funding was cut by the Bush administration. Now why is that? Would the same have occured in West Palm Beach or Hollywood for example?

The Postmaster General

09-06-2005, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
On Meet the Press this week, Tim Russert read from an article that was written many years ago about how little it would take for the levees to break and what the devastation would be if this was to happen. The state and local officials should have known the damage that was possible and should've planned for it much better. The people should have goten out of town when the warnings first came but many thought they would just ride out the storm. As I said before, reporters were showing officials BEGGING people to leave and they discussed how the people just didn't care. They beleived the hurricane woudl pass them etc.

Lynn, you semed to have missed something.

The hurricane DID pass them. People were RETURNING to survey the damage when the levees broke. Go read a fucking time line, and stop repeating yourself like this information isn't out there.

And more important to your non-existant point, 99% of the country didn't know shit about the levees. Yes, maybe it was the state's job to know -- but they had been petitioning the feds for funding, but oh well, we are at war and people have to make sacrifices. Stop acting like this has never been said, and isn't widely documented. .

No one BEGGED the people to leave because of the levees breaking. I've said this about a dozen times, and no one still seems to believe me, or realize what I'm saying. This is not documented, and in fact, everything points to what I've been saying -- There were TWO SEPERATE EVACUATIONS --- One to high ground because of the hurricane -- That was days notice. Then another one after the levees broke, where the people currently evacuated had to re-evacuate - this was an instance notice. Stop acting like it didn't happen like that. You are basically asking why the people didn't get flown out of there by angels with wings.

And Lynn - How much do you know about your community's emergenc preparedness plan? How much do you tink the average person in your town knows.

People don't read scientific reports. People don't pay attention to government affairs. People on the average, that is.

The people had no way of knowing about the levees breaking, and to imply otherwise is totally "after the fact" thinking. Chances are - Us people on the net STILL know more than the people of New Orleans who are flooded. And chances are we didn't know shit before hand.

outsyder

09-06-2005, 11:27 PM

electriclite

09-06-2005, 11:44 PM

electriclite

09-06-2005, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by outsyder
So over 30 years of ignorance comes down to Bush cutting funds in the last 5?

And from downgrading FEMA from a cabinet position to just another department in Homeland Security to be overlooked easier.

Terrorism is obviously a fact of life, but then again so are natural disasters. And coincidentally we've been knocked by more natural disasters in this country then terrorism, but both need to be adequately prepared for in order to prevent full on devastation.

Mr-Blonde

09-06-2005, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by outsyder
So over 30 years of ignorance comes down to Bush cutting funds in the last 5?

In 2001 they compiled a list of the most likely disasters to befall the US and guess what was near the top of that list? NO being struck by a Cat 5 hurricane. The state of Louisiana had requested funding for years. Why didn't they get it?

Answer: Because we have been more concerned with the idiotic "War on Terror" and "Homeland Security" which is a fucking joke. If we can't even respond to a forseeable event such as a hurricane, what makes you think these jokers can respond to an instant nuclear, biological, event?

In the administration's incredible shortsightedness the fundamentals like natural disaster relief and preventitive infrastructure maintenance has been overlooked. Now instead of paying to fix the levees and restore the coastal wetlands which in the past had acted as anatural buffer most of the city of NO and many gulf state towns are total losses.

The Postmaster General

09-07-2005, 01:13 AM

I think Bush forgot he owned a lumber company again.

I'm waiting for the no-bid contracts to fix Louisiana, and let's not forget Alabama, or those other neighboring states.

Mr-Blonde

09-07-2005, 02:08 AM

Source AP (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=news&referrer=welcome&id=20050906/431d1440_3ca6_15526200509061808878249)

WASHINGTON - The government's disaster chief waited until hours after Hurricane Katrina had already struck the Gulf Coast before asking his boss to dispatch 1,000 Homeland Security workers to support rescuers in the region - and gave them two days to arrive, according to internal documents.

Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, sought the approval from Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff roughly five hours after Katrina made landfall on Aug. 29. Brown said that among duties of these employees was to "convey a positive image" about the government's response for victims.

Before then, FEMA had positioned smaller rescue and communications teams across the Gulf Coast. But officials acknowledged Tuesday the first department-wide appeal for help came only as the storm raged.

Brown's memo to Chertoff described Katrina as "this near catastrophic event" but otherwise lacked any urgent language. The memo politely ended, "Thank you for your consideration in helping us to meet our responsibilities."

The initial responses of the government and Brown came under escalating criticism as the breadth of destruction and death grew. President Bush and Congress on Tuesday pledged separate investigations into the federal response to Katrina. "Governments at all levels failed," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said Brown had positioned front-line rescue teams and Coast Guard helicopters before the storm. Brown's memo on Aug. 29 aimed to assemble the necessary federal work force to support the rescues, establish communications and coordinate with victims and community groups, Knocke said.

Instead of rescuing people or recovering bodies, these employees would focus on helping victims find the help they needed, he said.

"There will be plenty of time to assess what worked and what didn't work," Knocke said. "Clearly there will be time for blame to be assigned and to learn from some of the successful efforts."

Brown's memo told employees that among their duties, they would be expected to "convey a positive image of disaster operations to government officials, community organizations and the general public."

"FEMA response and recovery operations are a top priority of the department and as we know, one of yours," Brown wrote Chertoff. He proposed sending 1,000 Homeland Security Department employees within 48 hours and 2,000 within seven days.

Knocke said the 48-hour period suggested for the Homeland employees was to ensure they had adequate training. "They were training to help the life-savers," Knocke said.

Employees required a supervisor's approval and at least 24 hours of disaster training in Maryland, Florida or Georgia. "You must be physically able to work in a disaster area without refrigeration for medications and have the ability to work in the outdoors all day," Brown wrote.

The same day Brown wrote Chertoff, Brown also urged local fire and rescue departments outside Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi not to send trucks or emergency workers into disaster areas without an explicit request for help from state or local governments. Brown said it was vital to coordinate fire and rescue efforts.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said Tuesday that Brown should step down.

After a senators-only briefing by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other Cabinet members, Sen. Charles E. Schumer said lawmakers weren't getting their questions answered.

"What people up there want to know, Democrats and Republicans, is what is the challenge ahead, how are you handling that and what did you do wrong in the past," said Schumer, D-N.Y.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said the administration is "getting a bad rap" for the emergency response. "People have to understand this is a big, big problem."

Meanwhile, the airline industry said the government's request for help evacuating storm victims didn't come until late Thursday afternoon. The president of the Air Transport Association, James May, said the Homeland Security Department called then to ask if the group could participate in an airlift for refugees.

The Postmaster General

09-07-2005, 03:20 AM

I like that more information is coming out in defense of the people who were stranded there - things that are putting a better light on what exactly went wrong.

Unfortunately, I don't know how many of the nay-sayers will read all that. As I've learned today - people just don't like to read long posts.

Lynn7

09-07-2005, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Lynn, you semed to have missed something.

The hurricane DID pass them. People were RETURNING to survey the damage when the levees broke. Go read a fucking time line, and stop repeating yourself like this information isn't out there.

And more important to your non-existant point, 99% of the country didn't know shit about the levees. Yes, maybe it was the state's job to know -- but they had been petitioning the feds for funding, but oh well, we are at war and people have to make sacrifices. Stop acting like this has never been said, and isn't widely documented. .

No one BEGGED the people to leave because of the levees breaking. I've said this about a dozen times, and no one still seems to believe me, or realize what I'm saying. This is not documented, and in fact, everything points to what I've been saying -- There were TWO SEPERATE EVACUATIONS --- One to high ground because of the hurricane -- That was days notice. Then another one after the levees broke, where the people currently evacuated had to re-evacuate - this was an instance notice. Stop acting like it didn't happen like that. You are basically asking why the people didn't get flown out of there by angels with wings.

And Lynn - How much do you know about your community's emergenc preparedness plan? How much do you tink the average person in your town knows.

People don't read scientific reports. People don't pay attention to government affairs. People on the average, that is.

The people had no way of knowing about the levees breaking, and to imply otherwise is totally "after the fact" thinking. Chances are - Us people on the net STILL know more than the people of New Orleans who are flooded. And chances are we didn't know shit before hand.

Bubba, I know about the time line. I know that the people were warned when the hurricane was on its way and I also know the levees didn't come down right away, but could't that have been predicted? The levees were at risk and a cat 4 storm was a very real danger, even after the fact.

MY community would be up a creek cause we don't have good government here. I am sure the governments are in trouble just about anywhere cause they are made up of people who are generally politicians and bureacrats. But I know if someone warned me not to cross a bridge cause it was under threat, I would not cross it. If someone told me to evacuate and I didn't have a car, I would walk and find a way out of danger. If I waited around for the government to come get me I would be in trouble cause after all, everyone, including the police and firemen were hit by the same hurricane.

The problem is deeper- this extrme dependence on the government is absurd. The government can not be depended on to meet everyone's needs. This society is so weakened it is a wonder we are still hanging in there.

Lynn7

09-07-2005, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
The truth of it is that those levees required serious improvements. They were old and antiquated. NO had not seen a hurricane since 1969 and I believe it was a Cat 4. The levees were designed to withstand a Cat 3!

They had been trying to get the feds to invest 14 billion (a drop in the bucket) into it to improve the sytem for years. But every year the funding was cut by the Bush administration. Now why is that? Would the same have occured in West Palm Beach or Hollywood for example?

Bush has been in office for four years and Clinton was in office for eight. And Bush has had a lot of serious stuff to occupy him since the events of 9-11. If Clinton was such a good friend of the poor and the black people, why didn't he make sure those levees were strengthened? I think a lot of this is political opportunism. I do not blame Clinton but I think the Bush bashing is transparently obvious and he gets bashed for anything and everything. My rubbish got picked up late-it's Bush's fault!

When all is said and done, can levees ever be expected to withstand the force of a cat 4 hurricane? Seems doubtful.

someguy

09-07-2005, 05:44 PM

Here's a video of a survivor telling her story, it's a really amazing watch and shows how bad things are there. (http://www.wafb.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?clipid1=516003&at1=News+%2D+Special+Coverage&vt1=v&h1=Charmaine+Neville%3A+New+Orleans+Evacuee&d1=363667&redirUrl=www.wafb.com&activePane=info&LaunchPageAdTag=homepage)

Ps Lynn, the whole point of a levee is to withstand strong hurricanes and floods

The Postmaster General

09-07-2005, 06:23 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lynn7
Bubba, I know about the time line. I know that the people were warned when the hurricane was on its way and I also know the levees didn't come down right away, but could't that have been predicted? The levees were at risk and a cat 4 storm was a very real danger, even after the fact.

Again --- Did you know all this shit BEFORE the storm? Do you know all about YOUR LOCAL EPS?

The people were warned about the hurricane. They were told to go to high ground. So they did.

THEN the levees broke and then a full evacuation was called.

It was the governments job to make the people aware of the potential risk. Yes, it could have been predicted, but the point that you won't seem to grasp is that - IT'S NOT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN'S JOB TO KNOW ABOUT HOW WELL THE LEVEES ARE WORKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry for yelling, but I feel like you are covering your eyes/ears. Jesus Christ - You are defending Condi Rice for not doing anything, saying, "That's not her job" -- Then you come in here and say that it's the people's responsibility to know about the public works, and about all of this stuff that they elect people to take care of. What? That's sure as shit ain't the job of anyone EXCEPT government officials.

I suppose if we are invaded tomorrow, and I get blown up, I should have evacuated because I knew the risk of an invasion???? That's basically the same thing as what you are saying.

One more time -- No one was told to evacuate because of a thread of what you are looking at on TV. Different events, different situations, different evacuations.

MY community would be up a creek cause we don't have good government here. I am sure the governments are in trouble just about anywhere cause they are made up of people who are generally politicians and bureacrats. But I know if someone warned me not to cross a bridge cause it was under threat, I would not cross it. If someone told me to evacuate and I didn't have a car, I would walk and find a way out of danger. If I waited around for the government to come get me I would be in trouble cause after all, everyone, including the police and firemen were hit by the same hurricane.

Okay, even though I've repeated this a dozen times, I"m going to try not to type in Caps again:

No one waited for the government to come and get them. It wasn't the hurricane that fucked everything up.

Let me just say this, and worry about it later:

THE HURRICANE DIDN"T DO SHIT TO NEW ORLEANS.

Okay, that's not entirely true, but for your sake of understanding, it might as well be.

I don't understand what you don't understand here Lynn - Are you reading my posts, or are they to long? There is no shame in not being able to read through one of my posts. I can summarize a lot, but usually I end up saying totally false things like the hurrican didn't do shit to NO.

Let me see ----- No one was evacuated because of the levees until after they broke. No one thought about the levees until after they broke.

And it seems this one thing should be all you need to hear, but I've said this several times --

PEOPLE WERE HEADING BACK TO NEW ORLEANS WHEN THE LEVEES BROKE!!!!! WHY WERE THEY HEADING BACK? BECAUSE THE HURRICANE HAD PASSED AND DIDN'T DO SHIT.

Fuck - sorry for caps.

But really - Do you have more sympathy for the people who were told it was safe to return? Can you stop fantasizing about Bush for one second and think here --- Where do you start the blame? The people who were returning -- Well, they did evacuate. What about them? Do they get half your sympathy and you are reserving the other half for the rich elite who were sitting at their second homes waiting a few days before going back? Maybe the people who slept in, and never heard the news that the hurricane MISSED New Orleans.

Have you ever lived though a hurricane? Do you actually know what goes on in areas when one is expected, or are you just getting all this information on BUSHDEFENSE.com?

The problem is deeper- this extrme dependence on the government is absurd. The government can not be depended on to meet everyone's needs. This society is so weakened it is a wonder we are still hanging in there.

Lynn - You said, "MY community would be up a creek cause we don't have good government here."

By your definition, the people in your community shouldn't be up shit creek, even though you don't have good government.

Why are you defending what was obviously a fuck up on some level?

Dependence on the government??? That's what you call expecting the government to tell you to evacuate because you'll be in the middle of a lake, because they know damn well their levee system is shit.

Sorry Lynn - I don't know shit about my local EPS, and I doubt you know anymore about your own.

If the government is responsible FOR ANYTHING it should be basic things such as letting their people know that they are worried about their EPS. My god, I would imagine even the most stringent personal liberty/responsibility proponent would have to agree with that.

And it's not just a matter of RESPONSIBILITY - it's obvious that it's the government's job to inform us of catastrophic danger. Even more so, in this case, I think it would have been a matter of DECENCY.

So again, because you still don't see to get it ---

What happened in New Orleans had very, very little to do with a hurricane.

Saying the hurrican caused the 20+ feet of flooding in New Orleans is about like saying that gravity was responsible for the World Trade Center collapse. Yeah, it played a big part in it, but that's not exactly what happened. By what you are saying - we shouldn't be worried about the people who stayed in the Trade Ceter after the planes hit --- Didn't they know the buildings would fall? I don't think anyone told them, the same way no one told the general public of New Orleans that they needed to get the hell out of there.

And just in case you still don't get it - you say you read the time line, but you sure as heck don't act like someone who has ---

_ Hurricane, CAT 5 coming to NO, people told to go to high ground

- People go to high ground

- Storm reduces to CAT 4 AND BYPASSES New Orleans for neighboring state.

- People RETURN to NO, begin surveying damage.

- Leaks are noticed in levees.

- Announement made that levees could break.

- Levees break.

- Mandatory evacuation issued due to flood.

When you say the were 'begging' people to leave --- they we begging people to heead to higher ground. You don't know what you are talking about there, or you don't know exactly what was being asked.

Can I say it again -- No one was told to evacuate, except for the risk of 8 feet of water. Many peole stayed because 8 feet of water isn't really that bad if you have a multi-story house.

When you look at pictures of New Orleans - you need to realize that none of that, or most of it had nothing to do with the hurricane, and nothing like that was expected.

The things you heard about beforehand were about the water flushing over the levees -- that sounded really bad, and they were really worried about it. That happened, and it was bad, but not nearly as bad as when the levees broke -- which no one heard much about until it happened. Stop trying to rewrite history to defend Bush - I, for one, am not even focused on Bush but on the state and local level.

And if you say anything else again about the people being told to evacuate -- let me just say it first -- You are wrong. I've posted the time line 3 times in various threads, have repeated it dozens of times in the past days, but no matter how you look at it --- No one was evacuated from New Orleans as a result of possible levee damage.

Stop trying to make this about defending Bush and just begin to start to actually see what happened and stop making it into something totally different.

The Postmaster General

09-08-2005, 11:13 AM

30+ bodies found dead at St. Rita's Nursing Home, in St Bernard Parish. 40-50 people rescued. (Thursday September 8th) (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.impact/index.html)

"The parish is east of New Oleans, where 10,000 and 15,000 people are believed to remain in the flooded ity, and thousands are feared dead."

"A blind and elderly woman who identified herself as Ms. Connie rejected authorities' efforts to coax her from her rundown rental home until they agreed to take her dog."

"In the French Quarter, Deidre White said she felt "pretty safe" working at Johnny White's, a bar that even Hurricane Katrina did not shut down.

"We're here to help people out and feed them," she said. "I'm going to try and hold my ground and stay in my home as long as I can, because I love living here."

Gee Lynn - I wonder why all those peple in the nursing home didn't evacuate. They must have not of read any of your posts.

Mr-Blonde

09-08-2005, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bush has been in office for four years and Clinton was in office for eight. And Bush has had a lot of serious stuff to occupy him since the events of 9-11. If Clinton was such a good friend of the poor and the black people, why didn't he make sure those levees were strengthened? I think a lot of this is political opportunism. I do not blame Clinton but I think the Bush bashing is transparently obvious and he gets bashed for anything and everything. My rubbish got picked up late-it's Bush's fault!

So Bush can spens billions on the war effort but can't put a dime into infrastructure. I still don't get how invading Iraq benefits us in the slightest. The whole "War on Terror" is fundamentally flawed. The rationale I keep hearing is it's better to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Well try telling that to the people of London. Plus everyone keeps saying that it's only a matter of time till they hit the US again.

When all is said and done, can levees ever be expected to withstand the force of a cat 4 hurricane? Seems doubtful.

Um-- yes. Because the levees would have been improved to withstand a Cat 5 hurricane.

someguy

09-08-2005, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Gee Lynn - I wonder why all those peple in the nursing home didn't evacuate. They must have not of read any of your posts.

Don't you tell me that. It was their fault, there was a church around the damn corner!

darchangel

09-08-2005, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bush has been in office for four years and Clinton was in office for eight. And Bush has had a lot of serious stuff to occupy him since the events of 9-11. If Clinton was such a good friend of the poor and the black people, why didn't he make sure those levees were strengthened? I think a lot of this is political opportunism. I do not blame Clinton but I think the Bush bashing is transparently obvious and he gets bashed for anything and everything. My rubbish got picked up late-it's Bush's fault!

so which is it, Lynn? the fault of those damn stubborn citizens for not leaving everything they owned/their homes/their pets when told to, or Clinton's fault for not fixing this years ago, since we all know it couldn't possibly be poor martyred Dubya's fault.

speaking of, nice of our illustrious pres to come off of vacation long enough to go pose for some video/photo ops that weren't in New Orleans as opposed to actually helping/giving money/doing something.

i say have Kanye West hold him while Mayor Nagin punches him repeatedly in the head...once for every person who starved to death/dehydrated/died waiting for medicine in N.O.

Free Drinks and Breasty Hugs

~darchangel~

Mr-Blonde

09-08-2005, 02:08 PM

'St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines was ground zero'

source: CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.forgottentown.ap/index.html)

CHALMETTE, Louisana (AP) -- The cars were swallowed, the homes shattered and the people left clinging for life. Survivors waited for help, but it seemed like so little, so late.

More than a week since Hurricane Katrina cut its swath along the Gulf Coast, word is only now starting to trickle out from this outlying area of some 66,000 people on Louisiana's southeastern edge.

What's said is filled with anger -- residents feeling even more abandoned than hard-hit New Orleans -- and disbelief. (See video of a largely submerged parish -- 2:35 )

"If you dropped a bomb on this place, it couldn't be any worse than this," said Ron Silva, a district fire chief in St. Bernard Parish. "It's Day 8, guys. Everything was diverted first to New Orleans, we understand that. But do you realize we got 18 to 20 feet of water from the storm, and we've still got 7 to 8 feet of water?"

In the working-class parishes of St. Bernard and Plaquemines, the heavy rain and levee break brought a wall of water up to 20 feet high. Local officials expect the number of deaths to be in the hundreds.

In one wrenching case, 30 residents in a nursing home died and 30 others were evacuated, said Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, who has been working with search and rescue. (Full story)

Homes were chopped open, a Baptist church's steeple ripped off. Water gurgles and spurts in places from leaking natural gas.

"I can't even imagine trying to rebuild this," said Kevin Cobble, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife officer from Las Cruces, New Mexico, who has been looking for survivors.

As relief efforts sputtered in the days after the storm, Verlyn Davis Jr., an out-of-work electrician, took charge. He transformed his parents' bar and seafood restaurant, Lehrmann's, into a shelter where he dispatches people to clear roads, hook up generators and help in the disaster relief process.

About 20 people have been staying there these days. On a boarded-up window out front is a blue spray-painted sign: "ABOUT TIME BUSH!"

"The governor and the president let thousands of people die and they let them die on their roofs and they let them die in the water," said Davis, 45. "We got left. They didn't care."

Help has begun to pour in -- the sound of the military helicopters overhead interrupts the silence. Search teams in boats pound on rooftops. They shout, "Anybody home?" But they know the answer.

"New Orleans took a beating," said Jason Stage, a 47-year-old maintenance worker staying at Lehrmann's. "But St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines was ground zero."

The Postmaster General

09-08-2005, 02:51 PM

Not even mentioning the people in Alabama, who didn't expect the hurricane to head their way. Are we supposed to ask why they didn't evacuate as well, because we all know hurricanes are unpredictable, and there was a chance of it effecting Alabama.

What blows me away is how during the election, The Bush Camp was all talking about how Kerry's team liked to scare people and make them think things were worse off than they are. Then something like this happens, and the Bush Camp starts saying that the people should have known it was worse off.

Rumsfield was talking to that Meet The Press guy and even said that there was a failure on the government level. Of course he's real sure to mention it had nothing to do with his branch, noting that there are 100,000 guards who aren't deployed, and weren't in Iraq -- making note that the claims that the war effecting the response are boogus.

Okay, great Rumsfeld - there's a 100,000 troops sitting around not doing anything. Okay, so you made a point about ti not being because they were in Iraq --- Okay, do you realize you just told the country that there were 100,000 troops not doing anything, when they could have been doing something that first week.

It's amazing the bullshit people come out with when trying to play politics. Even more amazing how someone will ignore the chain of events for days and weeks in order to play politics. No, no.... It's all equally amazing.

Don't you tell me that. It was their fault, there was a church around the damn corner!

Haha - For some reason, forgive me for saying -- Hearing this kind of stuff about how they could have found refuge in churches always makes me think of Jules and Vincent from Pulp Fiction: "You mean to tell me you thought the hand of God would come down and stopped that hurricane?' "Hell, turn coke to pepsi, help me find my socks - I don't know. All I know is that I was expecting a miracle."

Mr-Blonde

09-08-2005, 04:30 PM

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7730/cartoon200509026sy.gif

Lynn7

09-08-2005, 08:04 PM

Bubba, I do read your posts but you have to understand that we have differences of opinion. Just becasue I read your posts doesn't mean I am going to automatically see the light and see things your way. And it works the other way too. I don't expect you to change your mind on things either.We come at things from totally different perspectives.

I think it would be totally naive to ever think that anything manmade could withstand a huge force of nature. If those levees are rebuilt to withstand cat 4 or cat 5 then I would have to say that it might withstand it but then all of a sudden the day will come when it does not withstand it and it will be no shock to me.

I have never held the people who are sick, or the children or the elderly responsible for not getting out. I think is unfair for anyone to say that I have meant to blame these people. I blame those big healthy people that I saw hanging around while people are giving out warnings for them to leave.They did not take the warnings seriously. I saw them with my own eyes on TV.

I have not heard that anyone was EVER told it was safe to go back when the hurricane passed! Who would EVER say that? At the least, there was a worry of power lines in water and electrocution, lack of refrigeration, water contamination and many other hazards. They knew for years that the levees would not stand up against a hurricane. They had to want to at least get some engineers in to check them out for damage-----I just don't beleive the people were
EVEER told it was safe to go back.

Blaming bush for all of this is just so unbeleivable.what does Bush have to do with a state? There is state government and city government in place. I tis the way the county is structured. If Bush had barged in when the hurricane came, he would've been criticized for interfering with local goverenment. He would have been accused of racism (taking over the power from the black people who were in charge, like the mayor). I think it is all sickening the way this has turned into politcal opportunism and my admiration for Bush just grows larger and larger.

I watch him and wonder at how he always takes the high road and just bears up under all the crap he has put up with over the years. I just love that guy!

The Postmaster General

09-08-2005, 08:21 PM

I went back and posted the points that mean the most to me in bold for those people who don't like to read.

It's not that I think you are going to see the light, I just wish you'd stop trying to make this about defending Bush.

Your post started out okay, you spent many a little bit going over the facts as you knew them -- then all of a sudden it turned into a 3rd Term campaign ad...

Lynn7 - I was talking to a friend about this. He lived in New Orleans went to Tulane.

He said it was common knowledge that the levees could break - saying I dind't have much of a point about no one not really knowing. This is a guy who is very close to getting his "drs" title and he is a pretty bright bulb - I would say he is above average.

So I asked him if he ever thought things would happen the way they did -- If he thought the levees breaking would be a big problem, or an enormous problem like they have now. Saying that no one can imagine what would actually happen.

He thinks and says, "You have a point. I didn't evacuate during __(?)___ until my sister called my mom, and my mom called me - leaving me little choice."

Okay, here we have someone who, even though, he knew there was a risk of danger, didn't understand how much danger he could face.

Lynn - Have you seen how much the mayor underplayed the levees. He gave a speech to evacuate, and it was basically like "HURRICANE OH NO! HIGH GROUND! HURRICANE! HURRICANE! HURRICANE! levees... HURRICANE! HURRICANE!"

Sorry to imply there was an official order to go back to the city. When I say "They said..." I was mostly refering to the media, who that day were going "Oh it changed course."

There is video all over the place of the interim after the storm and before the levees went down. People were coming back in, lookign at the damage. What you are saying about powerlines and so forth tells me you might have never been through a hurricane - That stuff gets turned off before hand. Everyone goes out during the eye and after it passes --- I have even been outside during a CAT 4. It's not as bad as most people think, but even worse than otehr people think.

What are you talking about with the levees? Are you saying no levee can be built to withstand a CAT5?

The point -- and it's not a matter of you "just disagreeing" is that the possibility of the levees bursting was relatively underplayed. You are seriously looking at the wrong video feeds when you are talking abou tthe "begging" and so forth.

Like I said, when Sanibel and other "rich" areas of Florida came under hurricane attack -- The police issued FORCED evacuations. In New Orleans, they are doing that over a week after it happened.

I'm telling you they FORCED people out of their home in order to protect them when it was a city where the average house is valued at 400k and the average income is 80k.

Why wasn't the same level of government intervention issues in a city where the houses are valued at an average of 90k and the average income is 30k? ESPECIALLY when the risk of disaster was greater, as you keep mentioning.

If you can answer that, or address that without turning the focus back on BUSH, then I will be happy.

Fuck - I'm missing the O.C. Damn you , Katrina!

MacReady

09-08-2005, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I watch him and wonder at how he always takes the high road and just bears up under all the crap he has put up with over the years. I just love that guy!

Gimme a goddamn break.

This cocksucker's been lying on his ass doing NOT A FUCKING THING to better his country. He let the man behind the murder of nearly 3,000 americans get away with it in after just 2 years of chase (with the rewards of having a man he hated taken out of power), managed tostart a war on a justification that later proved to be as hollow as his head despite nearly all of humanity saying a big fat resounding NO to it, told the U.N. to fuck off when they wouldn't play ball with his immoral and illegal war, has millions conservatives across America all too eager to sweep up after his endless after his endless political fuck ups, like a naive mom unable to see her son's a hyperactive spoiled little shit and making it sound as if his treating people who aren't attracted to the opposite sex as second class citizen and having the most laughably idotic education system in the world is somehow restoring the economy to near epic proportions. That is, when he's not too busy laying around in Texas doing jack shit

This man has had life handed down to him on a silver platter since he poped out of his mom's vulva. He's started a war while himself thought he was waaaaaay to precious and important to the world to risk being killed in an unpopular war so he used his dad to get him out illegally and enjoyed cocaine off some hooker's ass at home while real mean saw real war overseas. Then he got an re-election despite virtually everyone not wanting to.

Gimme a break.

If this cowardly, retarded little cocksucker ever so much as whimpers that people want him to show a little effort in helping out the people who belonged to a part of the country he runs and is supposed to improved, I will personally run across the border to Washington faster than you can "meep-meep!", rip through the White House walls, and slowly burn off his tiny, whitered old genitals with a small lighter, slowly over the course of an hour, before finishing what any human being with a sense of decency should've done a long time ago and STRANGLE HIM WITH HIS OWN FUCKING INTESTINES!!!!!

Over and out.

outsyder

09-08-2005, 10:43 PM

Army's engineers spent millions on Louisiana projects labeled as pork
Michael Grunwald, Washington Post
September 8, 2005 CORPS0908

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had launched a $748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control. The Corps was building a massive new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.

Except barge traffic on the canal has been steadily decreasing.

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times larger.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.

For example, after a $194 million deepening project for the Port of Iberia flunked a Corps cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., tucked language into an emergency Iraq spending bill ordering the agency to redo its calculations. The Corps also spends tens of millions of dollars a year dredging little-used waterways like the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Atchafalaya River and the Red River -- now known as the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, in honor of the project's congressional godfather -- for barge traffic that turns out to be less than forecast.

Most controversial

The Industrial Canal lock is one of the agency's most controversial projects, sued by residents of a New Orleans low-income black neighborhood and cited by an alliance of environmentalists and taxpayer advocates as the fifth-worst current Corps boondoggle. In 1998, the Corps justified its plan to build a new lock -- rather than fix the old lock for a tiny fraction of the cost -- by predicting huge increases in barge traffic.

In fact, barge traffic on the canal had been plummeting since 1994, but the Corps left that data out of its study. And barges have continued to avoid the canal since the study was finished, even though they are visiting the port in increased numbers.

Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke last week. Now she's holed up with her family in a St. Louis hotel, and her neighborhood is underwater. "Our politicians never cared half as much about protecting us as they cared about pork," she said.

Wednesday, congressional defenders of the Corps said they hoped the fallout from Hurricane Katrina would pave the way for billions of dollars of additional spending on water projects. Steve Ellis, a Corps critic with Taxpayers for Common Sense, called their push "the legislative equivalent of looting."

Louisiana's politicians have requested much more money for New Orleans hurricane protection than the Bush administration has proposed or Congress has provided. In the last budget bill, Louisiana's delegation requested $27.1 million for shoring up levees around Lake Pontchartrain, the full amount the Corps had declared as its "project capability." Bush suggested $3.9 million, and Congress agreed to spend $5.7 million.

Administration officials also scaled back a long-term project to restore Louisiana's disappearing coastal marshes, which once provided a measure of natural hurricane protection for New Orleans. They ordered the Corps to stop work on a $14 billion plan and devise a $2 billion plan instead.

Levees only so strong

But overall, the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were only designed to protect against a Category 3 storm. Strock also has said the marsh restoration project would not have done much to diminish Katrina's storm surge, which passed east of the coastal wetlands.

"The project manager for the Great Pyramids probably put in a request for 100 million shekels and only got 50 million," said John Paul Woodley Jr., the Bush administration official overseeing the Corps. "Flood protection is always a work in progress; on any given day, if you ask whether any community has all the protection it needs, the answer is almost always: Maybe, but maybe not."

The Corps had been studying the possibility of upgrading the New Orleans levees for a higher level of protection before Katrina hit, but Woodley said that study would not have been finished for years. Still, liberal bloggers, Democratic politicians and some Republican defenders of the Corps have linked the catastrophe to the underfunding of the agency.

"We've been hollering about funding for years, but everyone would say: There goes Louisiana again, asking for more money," said former Democratic senator John Breaux. "We've had some powerful people in powerful places, but we never got what we needed."

http://www.startribune.com/stories/125/5602732.html

The Postmaster General

09-08-2005, 10:58 PM

That's an insightful piece. Clearly there seems to be a lot of corruption in that city.

I suggested a corrupt theory to someone --- Saying that in Tampa, when they were trying to push for building high rises in a poor area, and the people wouldn't sell, suddenly an arson appeared and the high rises ended up built. I don't really think people are so evil to do this sort of thing, but when you start hearing sketchy things going on, it makes it hard for these people to defend themselves from being worst case evil.

Again, though - It really bothers me how this always gets spun into a political drama. These fucking piece of shit rag papers - including the ones that I link - They need to start seperating these stories. LIke "Issues with hurricane" and "Politicians place blame" --- It seems every single factual revelation coming out of this ends on a gang warish tip. All of that bothers me because it keps the defenders on both sides from really knowing what's going on. And honestly -- I bothers me too because it's sort of confusing. I'm reading all of these important facts, then part way in I find myself going back - "Okay he said she said what now?" :mad:

Mr-Blonde

09-08-2005, 11:00 PM

Warnings of New Orleans disaster ignored, funding slashed: experts

source: Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050902/ts_alt_afp/usweatherwarnings_050902165417)

WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities ignored warnings that New Orleans was vulnerable to a hurricane nightmare and slashed funding that could have saved the city as spending on the war in Iraq soared, experts said Friday.

Four years ago the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) warned a major hurricane or flooding in the Big Easy was among the three catastrophes most likely to hit the United States, along with a terrorist attack on New York.

But instead of boosting funding to the centuries-old city of 1.4 million people that lies below sea level, authorities cut funding for hundreds of millions of dollars of critical work to bolster and repair the levees that keep the waters of the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain at bay.

"This was a disaster waiting to happen," said John Rennie, editor-in-chief of U.S. science and technology bible, Scientific American.

"For years there has been a multitude of warnings that critical work on rebuilding the levees has been lagging and that the city was particularly vulnerable but these warnings effectively went unheeded," he said.

Rennie's magazine warned in 2001 that a degradation of the city's levee and pumping systems, new building developments and inadequate evacuation routes had put New Orleans at serious risk of a human catastrophe in which more than 250,000 people could be stranded and thousands killed.

But federal government funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans to raise and strengthen the levees of the city — in which tens of thousands of people are now stranded and thousands feared dead — dwindled as the United States went to war in Iraq and launched its fight against terrorism, Rennie said.

"Catastrophes are fortunately very rare so we tend to take a false confidence from the fact that we've weathered lots of horrible disasters in the past," he said.

"Because authorities did not see this kind of disaster as a priority, they put off spending to divert the money elsewhere — especially in the last couple of years when we have had a war to fight and homeland defence to worry about," Rennie added.

The administration of President George W Bush cut the $27.1 million budget requested by the Corps of Engineers for improving the levees in 2005 by more than 80% to $3.9 million, although Congress finally raised the grant to $5.7 million, compared to $10 million in 2001.

The $100 million 2005 budget requested by the Southeast Louisiana Flood control project was slashed to $16.5 million by Bush and Congress finally awarded $34 million to the scheme, compared to $69 million in 2001.

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied the administration had underfunded flood control in the stricken area, saying he had received no complaints from the Corps of Engineers.

"Flood control has been a priority of this administration from day one," he said adding that there was "nothing to suggest underfunding whatsoever and that it's been more of a design issue with the levees."

But the authorities' clear lack of preparedness for such a catastrophe was evident in the aftermath of the catastrophe, with deadly delays occurring in rescuing and getting help to stranded victims.

As emergency workers battled to repair the levees that breached after Katrina hit Monday, risk assessor Risk Management Solution said in a report Friday that the "insufficient level of flood protection offered by the city's levees has been exacerbated by shortcomings in preparedness."

The New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper warned in a Pulitzer prize-winning series of articles in 2002 that the levees would be inadequate to shield the city from a major water surge such as that generated by Katrina.

"We were not ready for this situation, which was obvious," John McQuaid, one of the authors of the articles, told CNN. "No-one who has paid attention to this situation in the past five to 10 years is surprised by what has happened in New Orleans."

"You need sustained attention, lots of money and co-ordination from the highest levels of government. That never came to fruition," he said.

The Postmaster General

09-08-2005, 11:10 PM

They should give Halliburton a no-contract bid to fix New Orleans, then I think no one will be bitter or look bad.

Mr-Blonde

09-09-2005, 11:38 AM

I know that this thread has been inundated with articles but the proof is in the pudding folks!

-------------------------------------------------------

Agency has suffered ‘brain drain’ since 2001

source: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261552/)

Five of eight top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials came to their posts with virtually no experience in handling disasters and now lead an agency whose ranks of seasoned crisis managers have thinned dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

FEMA's top three leaders -- Director Michael D. Brown, Chief of Staff Patrick J. Rhode and Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks D. Altshuler -- arrived with ties to President Bush's 2000 campaign or to the White House advance operation, according to the agency. Two other senior operational jobs are filled by a former Republican lieutenant governor of Nebraska and a U.S. Chamber of Commerce official who was once a political operative.

Meanwhile, veterans such as U.S. hurricane specialist Eric Tolbert and World Trade Center disaster managers Laurence W. Zensinger and Bruce P. Baughman -- who led FEMA's offices of response, recovery and preparedness, respectively -- have left since 2003, taking jobs as consultants or state emergency managers, according to current and former officials.

Because of the turnover, three of the five FEMA chiefs for natural disaster-related operations and nine of 10 regional directors are working in an acting capacity, agency officials said.

Patronage appointments to the crisis-response agency is nothing new to Washington administrations. But inexperience in FEMA's top ranks is emerging as a key concern of local, state and federal leaders as investigators begin to sift through what the government has admitted was a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

"FEMA requires strong leadership and experience because state and local governments rely on them," said Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association. "When you don't have trained, qualified people in those positions, the program suffers as a whole."

Scorching criticism

Last week's greatest foe was, of course, a storm of such magnitude that it "overwhelmed" all levels of government, according to Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine). And several top FEMA officials are well-regarded by state and private counterparts in disaster preparedness and response.

They include Edward G. Buikema, acting director of response since February, and Kenneth O. Burris, acting chief of operations, a career firefighter and former Marietta, Ga., fire chief.

But scorching criticism has been aimed at FEMA, and it starts at the top with Brown, who has admitted to errors in responding to Hurricane Katrina and the flooding in New Orleans. The Oklahoma native, 50, was hired to the agency after a rocky tenure as commissioner of a horse sporting group by former FEMA director Joe M. Allbaugh, the 2000 Bush campaign manager and a college friend of Brown's.

Rhode, Brown's chief of staff, is a former television reporter who came to Washington as advance deputy director for Bush's Austin-based 2000 campaign and then the White House. He joined FEMA in April 2003 after stints at the Commerce Department and the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Altshuler is a former presidential advance man. His predecessor, Scott Morris, was a media strategist for Bush with the Austin firm Maverick Media.

David I. Maurstad, who stepped down as Nebraska lieutenant governor in 2001 to join FEMA, has served as acting director for risk reduction and federal insurance administrator since June 2004. Daniel Craig, a one-time political fundraiser and campaign advisor, came to FEMA in 2001 from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he directed the eastern regional office, after working as a lobbyist for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said Brown has managed more than 160 natural disasters as FEMA general counsel and deputy director since 2001, "hands-on experience [that] cannot be understated. Other leadership at FEMA brings particular skill sets -- policy management leadership, for example."

Deep bench

The agency has a deep bench of career professionals, said FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews, including two dozen senior field coordinators and Gil Jamieson, director of risk assessment. "Simply because folks who have left the agency have a disagreement with how it's being run doesn't necessarily indicate that there is a lack of experience leading it," she said.

Andrews said the "acting" designation for regional officials is a designation that signifies that they are FEMA civil servants -- not political appointees.

Touring the wrecked Gulf Coast with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff yesterday, Vice President Cheney also defended FEMA leaders, saying, "We're always trying to strike the right balance" between political appointees and "career professionals that fill the jobs underneath them."

But experts inside and out of government said a "brain drain" of experienced disaster hands throughout the agency, hastened in part by the appointment of leaders without backgrounds in emergency management, has weakened the agency's ability to respond to natural disasters. Some security experts and congressional critics say the exodus was fueled by a bureaucratic reshuffling in Washington in 2003, when FEMA was stripped of its independent Cabinet-level status and folded into the Department of Homeland Security.

Emergency preparedness has atrophied as a result, some analysts said, extending from Washington to localities.

"[FEMA] has gone downhill within the department, drained of resources and leadership," said I.M. "Mac" Destler, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. "The crippling of FEMA was one important reason why it failed."

Richard A. Andrews, former emergency services director for the state of California and a member of the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council, said state and local failures were critical in the Katrina response, but competence, funding and political will in Washington were also lacking.

Low rankings

"I do not think fundamentally this is an organizational issue," Andrews said. "You need people in there who have both experience and the confidence of the president, who are able to fight and articulate what FEMA's mission and role is, and who understand how emergency management works."

The agency's troubles are no secret. The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that promotes careers in federal government, ranked FEMA last of 28 agencies studied in 2003.

In its list of best places to work in the government, a 2004 survey by the American Federation of Government Employees found that of 84 career FEMA professionals who responded, only 10 people ranked agency leaders excellent or good.

Another 28 said the leadership was fair and 33 called it poor.

More than 50 said they would move to another agency if they could remain at the same pay grade, and 67 ranked the agency as poorer since its merger into the Department of Homeland Security.

The Postmaster General

09-09-2005, 12:26 PM

Keep them comign Mr_Blonde

Like I said before, my mom is down in Florida and she said there is a parking lot FULL of FEMA trailers from lst year that she thought would be pulled out on day 2, but have sat there collecting dust.

Mr-Blonde

09-09-2005, 06:15 PM

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (CNN) -- Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown was replaced Friday as the man in charge of the Hurricane Katrina federal relief effort.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff named Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen to replace Brown.

Allen had been directing efforts in New Orleans as Brown's acting assistant. Chertoff said he informed Allen Friday morning that he would take over the entire FEMA mission in the region.

Brown, under fire over his qualifications and what critics call a bungled response to Katrina, will return to his duties in Washington as overall FEMA chief, Chertoff said.

Admiral Allen has my full support in the very difficult work we have ahead," Chertoff said. The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as is FEMA.

Brown's reassignment came amid questions raised in Time magazine Friday about whether he padded his resume to overstate his experience in emergency management. A FEMA official quoted in the report said Brown believes the article is inaccurate.

----------------------------------------------------

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2489/brown4pm.jpg

Lynn7

09-10-2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I went back and posted the points that mean the most to me in bold for those people who don't like to read.

It's not that I think you are going to see the light, I just wish you'd stop trying to make this about defending Bush.

Your post started out okay, you spent many a little bit going over the facts as you knew them -- then all of a sudden it turned into a 3rd Term campaign ad...

Lynn7 - I was talking to a friend about this. He lived in New Orleans went to Tulane.

He said it was common knowledge that the levees could break - saying I dind't have much of a point about no one not really knowing. This is a guy who is very close to getting his "drs" title and he is a pretty bright bulb - I would say he is above average.

So I asked him if he ever thought things would happen the way they did -- If he thought the levees breaking would be a big problem, or an enormous problem like they have now. Saying that no one can imagine what would actually happen.

He thinks and says, "You have a point. I didn't evacuate during __(?)___ until my sister called my mom, and my mom called me - leaving me little choice."

Okay, here we have someone who, even though, he knew there was a risk of danger, didn't understand how much danger he could face.

Lynn - Have you seen how much the mayor underplayed the levees. He gave a speech to evacuate, and it was basically like "HURRICANE OH NO! HIGH GROUND! HURRICANE! HURRICANE! HURRICANE! levees... HURRICANE! HURRICANE!"

Sorry to imply there was an official order to go back to the city. When I say "They said..." I was mostly refering to the media, who that day were going "Oh it changed course."

There is video all over the place of the interim after the storm and before the levees went down. People were coming back in, lookign at the damage. What you are saying about powerlines and so forth tells me you might have never been through a hurricane - That stuff gets turned off before hand. Everyone goes out during the eye and after it passes --- I have even been outside during a CAT 4. It's not as bad as most people think, but even worse than otehr people think.

What are you talking about with the levees? Are you saying no levee can be built to withstand a CAT5?

The point -- and it's not a matter of you "just disagreeing" is that the possibility of the levees bursting was relatively underplayed. You are seriously looking at the wrong video feeds when you are talking abou tthe "begging" and so forth.

Like I said, when Sanibel and other "rich" areas of Florida came under hurricane attack -- The police issued FORCED evacuations. In New Orleans, they are doing that over a week after it happened.

I'm telling you they FORCED people out of their home in order to protect them when it was a city where the average house is valued at 400k and the average income is 80k.

Why wasn't the same level of government intervention issues in a city where the houses are valued at an average of 90k and the average income is 30k? ESPECIALLY when the risk of disaster was greater, as you keep mentioning.

If you can answer that, or address that without turning the focus back on BUSH, then I will be happy.

Fuck - I'm missing the O.C. Damn you , Katrina!

EVerything you are saying is the resposibility of lovcal government.Why don't they force these people to evacuate- God only knows. They are still not forcing evacuations- I think this is sad.

The good news is that the mayor's projected death count of 10,000 was extrmely overrated and they are finding fewer bodies than was anticipated which shows that most people DID get out and the ones that didn't were lost. There will be more dead still as the people refuse to evacuate and they get poisoned or diseased from the contamianted water. but whose fault will that be?

The Postmaster General

09-10-2005, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
EVerything you are saying is the resposibility of lovcal government.Why don't they force these people to evacuate- God only knows. They are still not forcing evacuations- I think this is sad

Bubba reads Lynn's statements, realizing she is presenting as new information what he was trying to get her to admit for the past week, and what one of his major points has been all along. He realizes that she still thinks she is disagreeing with him, even though she finally got his point.

Next, in homage to the late Carol O'Connor, and his character Archie Bunker, Bubba proceeds to pantomime loading a revolver, holding to his head, then pulling the trigger. Bubba then slumps over with his tongue hanging out

Lynn7

09-11-2005, 02:45 PM

When did I ever give you the impression that I did not think this was the local government's responsibilbity? I have always thought it was. I do not think it is Bush's responsiblitty to evacuate cities. And even today there are even more dozens of buses that are found in water that were not used to evacuate. That is the city's fault. The people who refused to evacuate are also responsible. I do beleive if a pereson is refusing to evacuate then they should be classified as mentally retarded and forcibly removed.Are we in agreement on that? And I also think they should be given jail time for endangering the lives of the evacuators by putting them in danger through sheer stupidity.

"Oh, I'm not going to evacuate- they are always saying the hurricane is going to hit us and it never does. I'm stayin here." Irresponsibiblty caused a lot of deaths but since we can't blame these people, we need to blame Bush.

MacReady

09-11-2005, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
When did I ever give you the impression that I did not think this was the local government's responsibilbity? I have always thought it was. I do not think it is Bush's responsiblitty to evacuate cities. And even today there are even more dozens of buses that are found in water that were not used to evacuate. That is the city's fault. The people who refused to evacuate are also responsible. I do beleive if a pereson is refusing to evacuate then they should be classified as mentally retarded and forcibly removed.Are we in agreement on that? And I also think they should be given jail time for endangering the lives of the evacuators by putting them in danger through sheer stupidity.

"Oh, I'm not going to evacuate- they are always saying the hurricane is going to hit us and it never does. I'm stayin here." Irresponsibiblty caused a lot of deaths but since we can't blame these people, we need to blame Bush.

An order to evacuate using school buses was given, althought only 5 drivers showed up.

Bush's neverending ineptitude was responsible for cutting payment for several years for something that might have been able to stop the hurricane damage, taking about half a week to get off his ass and do something, and continually morons in charge of organizations that are supposed to help.

It's time like this I wonder if Bush reaching in your womb to pluck an unborn child before chomping on it's skull would merely make you tear up, then say "oh well, he's saved me some money and money from having to raise. Besides, I already have three. Thanks Mr. President!"

JohnTheHenchman

09-11-2005, 04:59 PM

BUSH WAS RESPONSIBLE LOL

Local and State governments were more responsible lol

Thrizzle

09-11-2005, 07:59 PM

Terry Shiavo is close to being euthenized in Florida, and the federal government tries to move heaven and earth to stop it.

A category 5 hurricane is slowly making its way toward New Orleans, where the levee system, that is the city's only defense against ruin, is only designed to withstand a category 3. Bush and Cheney dont even cancel their vacations until AFTER distaster strikes.

The absurdity of it all.

Jon Lyrik

09-11-2005, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The absurdity of it all.

It *is* absurd. Where is Karl Rove now? Bush is falling in the polls as the mind-control agents put in the water around election time are wearing off, and Katrina is the sort of disaster that is ripe to be exploited by PR stunts that stir the spirit of Americans. Why didn't he get Bush to go down to NO helping people out and have him deride the evil state and local governments (who are Democrats) with some of the propaganda that Bush's handlers are so good at spinning out?

someguy

09-11-2005, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
BUSH WAS RESPONSIBLE LOL

Local and State governments were more responsible lol

They declare a state of emergency and order a mandatory evacuation before the hurricane

LOLOLOL THEY DID NOTHING

JohnTheHenchman

09-12-2005, 12:28 AM

lol Bush told them 2 leaf!

MacReady

09-12-2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
lol Bush told them 2 leaf!

ENOUGH WITH THE LOL! IT`S A REALLY RETARDED SAYING!

Also, they tried to leave, however they had insufficent equipement and men to do so. The government should`ve lent a helping hand.

RicochetShaw

09-12-2005, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by MacReady
ENOUGH WITH THE LOL! IT`S A REALLY RETARDED SAYING!
\

Ah, but Mac, therein lies t3h brilliance of what someguy and John have been doing. Using such low-brow, uncultured lingo ito establish their points in subtly witty ways. Very post-modern. I applaud you two, genius work.

The Postmaster General

09-12-2005, 01:43 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lynn7
When did I ever give you the impression that I did not think this was the local government's responsibilbity?

"The problem is deeper- this extrme dependence on the government is absurd. The government can not be depended on to meet everyone's needs. "

I do beleive if a pereson is refusing to evacuate then they should be classified as mentally retarded and forcibly removed.Are we in agreement on that?

No. As a health care professional and mental health advocate, I would never agree with misdiagnosing people for the sake of proving a point - especially if my point is to compare persons with MR to normally functioning people who I just don't think are smart.

As for getting the people out of there -

I have told you several times that when the rich islands of Florida were evacuated, that it was FORCED. I said they should have applied the same standards to all those areas in New Orleans. THAT, in fact is my #1 beef with the government. They left everyone hanging, in a sense.

And I also think they should be given jail time for endangering the lives of the evacuators by putting them in danger through sheer stupidity.

Where are these jails they are going to put them in? They had to evacuate. Remember?

"Oh, I'm not going to evacuate- they are always saying the hurricane is going to hit us and it never does. I'm stayin here." Irresponsibiblty caused a lot of deaths but since we can't blame these people, we need to blame Bush.

Are you paraphrasing there, because that is nothing at all how I imagine it went down.

To me, it was something more like, "Oh, the mayor said we needed to move to highground. Well, I can always go upstairs until they drain the water. No big deal. It's flooded before. FUCK! The levees broke. Damn! It's been 2 days, and - Hey, how come I haven't seen BUSH when Clinton was standing in the rain hours after a hurricane hit Miami, and Bush was in NY the day after 9/11, and in Florida the day after Ivan. Where is he? Oh, he's on been on.... vacation? Well, fuck that guy. This is his country, and he should act like he cares enough to cut his vacation short a day."

someguy

09-12-2005, 03:26 PM

RicochetShaw please stop the harrassment of me, you know what I am talking about.

I need a confirmation of this source. I keep hearing about how Nagin ordered buses to take people out but only a few drivers showed up so the plan didn't work. I looked around for a while but found no stories confirming this. I'm still looking but if someone happens to find it, post it in this thread. Many people are going on about how those school buses weren't used at all, but if they were going to be used and simply could not due to bad participation then it changes things around.

JohnTheHenchman

09-12-2005, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by MacReady
ENOUGH WITH THE LOL! IT`S A REALLY RETARDED SAYING!

Also, they tried to leave, however they had insufficent equipement and men to do so. The government should`ve lent a helping hand.

Agreed.

Local and state governments should've lent a helping hand.

Mr-Blonde

09-12-2005, 06:40 PM

Pictures are fun!

Monday:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/9784/15bk.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/1488/26qv.jpg

Tuesday:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/480/37jw.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5213/40ze.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/7396/55zq.jpg

Wednesday:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3691/64vm.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/2779/79kb.jpg

Mr-Blonde

09-12-2005, 06:42 PM

Thursday:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3513/85it.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/2199/93tz.jpg

Friday:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5355/102td.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/9089/116gh.jpg

MacReady

09-12-2005, 08:20 PM

Mr.Blonde, no offense, but you really aren't trying hard, are you?

(from a photo-shop contest at Ruthless Reviews forum, althought the first one hasn't been touched up one. It took me a few days to catch the joke).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/09/bush_caption.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b17/thepestilence123/image0013.jpg

http://www.picdump.org/albums/figurethisout/Cheneynigg.jpg

The Postmaster General

09-12-2005, 08:28 PM

SATURDAY

http://people.bu.edu/kerrylee/graphics/photos/monopoly.jpg

"Oh goodness, did you hear what somebody named Kanye West said last night?"

The Postmaster General

09-12-2005, 08:30 PM

SUNDAY

http://www.tamilnet.com/img/publish/2005/02/bush_clint_lanka_03_37821_435.jpg

"If you know of a better way to share protein strands, I'd like to hear it!"

Mr-Blonde

09-12-2005, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by MacReady
Mr.Blonde, no offense, but you really aren't trying hard, are you?

When it comes to bashing Bush's ineptitude I always give it a 110%.

Liked both of your pics though. We should all start a club.

JohnTheHenchman

09-12-2005, 09:51 PM

Someone tell me what Bush's physically being there would have done?

Mr-Blonde

09-12-2005, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Someone tell me what Bush's physically being there would have done?

Mmmmm I don't know maybe to show that he was taking charge? He was there with a speech right after the Twin Towers came down. This disaster is much larger in scope and NO is "ground zero" so how come no speech?

The real issues here are mainly:

1-) The administration cutting funding of all levee improvement and coastal wetlands development projects over the last four years.

2-) Bush's total lack of taking responsibility for appointing unqualified people in high places within his administration.

3-) The fact that as soon as the bombs were dropping in Afghanistan we were also airdropping rations to the survivors yet most of these folks went upwards of four days w/o any rations, water, or medical supplies which certainly increased the death toll.

4-) Bush's utter lack of leadership in this time of crisis.

JohnTheHenchman

09-12-2005, 10:07 PM

So we're upset that Bush did a poor job?

Uhhhhh

Mr-Blonde

09-12-2005, 10:20 PM

Possibly. :rolleyes:

The Postmaster General

09-12-2005, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Someone tell me what Bush's physically being there would have done?

It would have cut his vacation short.

Maybe would have made it look like he cared to the people living in it.

Could have lifted the spirits of the residents who were in distress. (See 9/12/2001)

He might have received the same sense of togetherness with the community - the same sense that Clinton expressed when asking citizens to help Florida, thereby making people take his words more seriously. Because even though Clinton didn't use his weather-stopping super powers, he made the people feel they were important and on his mind.

When people are thinking about Bush they might be more likely to show pictures of him standing in the rain, along with his fellow citizen, instead of pictures of him playing guitar with his fellow country-folk.

It could have instilled a sense of respect among the citizens in the USA, the ones who are not fans, and the ones who might be under the impression that the President has two duties - one as the guy who sends us to war (which he seems to like that part) and the one as the guy who speaks to the citizens whenever it goes bad and tells us it's going to be okay. They might think that since that is because one of the first things they learned about the president is that he is not only commander in chief but head of state. As it stands it looks like the Number One guy in our country didn't want to get back to work.

But those are all just could ofs and mights - all we know for sure is that it would have cut his vacation 2 days short.

This BubbaStrangelove post was 1634 characters out of the maximum amount of 20000 allowed by the boards. (Characters included within this disclaimer do not count)

JohnTheHenchman

09-12-2005, 10:38 PM

Yeah but we all knew he was going to do a bad job.

The Postmaster General

09-13-2005, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Yeah but we all knew he was going to do a bad job.

Based on the last count, you are about 49% correct.

Mr-Blonde

09-13-2005, 12:28 PM

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4777/bushackbar22yk0ss.jpg

This any better MacReady?

Mr-Blonde

09-13-2005, 02:57 PM

Bush: 'I take responsibility' for U.S. failures on Katrina

source: CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/13/katrina.impact/index.html)

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said during a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Bush was responding to a reporter's question about whether Americans should be concerned that the government is not prepared to respond to another disaster or terrorist attack after it took several days for aid and troops to arrive in New Orleans and other areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

He repeated his desire to find out exactly what went wrong on every level of government.

"It's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on ... so we can better respond," Bush said.

A bipartisan joint congressional committee is to review the response at all levels of government to the hurricane and report its findings to Congress no later than February 15.

Bush praised the first responders and the U.S. Coast Guard, who risked their lives to rescue New Orleans residents stranded on their rooftops.

"I'm not going to defend the process going in, but I will defend the people on the front line of saving lives," Bush said.

Earlier in the day, the White House said the president will address the nation Thursday night about the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

The 9 p.m. ET address is the latest administration reaction to Katrina, which roared ashore on August 29.

"The president will talk to the American people about the recovery and the way forward on the longer-term rebuilding," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters, according to Reuters.

Bush is expected to make his address from storm-wracked Louisiana, where the president toured damaged New Orleans neighborhoods on Monday.

On Monday, Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Mike Brown resigned, after questions were raised about his qualifications and for what critics call a bungled response to Katrina's destruction.

Brown's fall came quickly. On September 2, Bush told the 50-year-old lawyer, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, applauded the latest development. "I think it is clearly in the country's interest," Kennedy said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he was not surprised.

"Things didn't go as well as it should have," said the Tennessee Republican. But Frist added, "Now, I am very pleased where we are."

------------------------------------------

Has Hell frozen over? Is the apocalypse upon us? Did I just hear Bush admit he was wrong? Holey moley boys and girls. I'm numb.

Too bad it doesn't change anything about this bungled disaster recovery or the Bush administration's track record of failures. And the best part of it all is we still have three more years.

JohnTheHenchman

09-13-2005, 03:06 PM

It doesn't change anything?

See, this is what I mean. No matter he does, no one will be happy. Why even talk about him anymore?

someguy

09-13-2005, 03:42 PM

This is indeed shocking, but it shows that he's learned something from all of this. The main reason of doing this is, of course, since his approval rating is so low.

Now if he just admits responsibility for the failure that is Iraq...;)

Mr-Blonde

09-13-2005, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
It doesn't change anything?

See, this is what I mean. No matter he does, no one will be happy. Why even talk about him anymore?

I'll be happy when he gets impeached for his trumped up Iraq invasion intelligence and constant lying to the American public when trying to justify the war .

JohnTheHenchman

09-13-2005, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
I'll be happy when he gets impeached for his trumped up Iraq invasion intelligence and constant lying to the American public when trying to justify the war .

Really?

That would make you happy?

Ok.

Mr-Blonde

09-13-2005, 04:20 PM

Two questions for you:

Did I stutter?

-and-

Do you respond to everything with a question?

JohnTheHenchman

09-13-2005, 05:28 PM

Sorry.

I just can't fathom why anyone would want what you want.

Mr-Blonde

09-13-2005, 05:32 PM

Let's put it this way-- the only reason that I wouldn't want it to happen is because it would leave Dick Cheney in charge. Bush is a bumbling horribly inept, shortsighted, and dangerous president whose administration IMO has committed serious crimes against the American public all while making themselves richer at the same time. If any president ever deserved to be impeached it is Bush.

The Postmaster General

09-13-2005, 06:07 PM

"It doesn't change anything?

See, this is what I mean. No matter he does, no one will be happy."

It was actually going to respond by posting an *applause*, so I guess that means I'm happy that he did that.

To me, The Presidency is more than just a job - it's a dream. When our presidents own up to problems with their country, it makes the job appear more accessable to the young people who do nothing dream.

"Why even talk about him anymore?"

What do you suggest people talk about? Omar Shariff?

Mr-Blonde

09-13-2005, 07:08 PM

This would be taking responsibility:

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1654/bushresigns1cf.jpg

Lynn7

09-13-2005, 08:30 PM

Bush is a stand up guy taking responsiblbity for someting that was not even his job- he has millions of other things to be worrying about and not hurrican evacuation- is he even now on the coast of the Carolinas with binocs looking at the tropical storm?what is it turns back into a hurricane- he should be there on the front lines to help evacuate!!

It is local government's job to evacuate and as the news reports show it is not 10,000 people who were not evacuated but hundreds that would have fit in those school or city buses. My local town transports hundreds of kids to school each day in an hour's time. If the mayor had planned better maybe he could have gottne these people out in the 5 days they knew the storm might be on it s way or at least tthe 2 days when it was a sure thing. Maybe the mayor only called for drivers at the las tminute when people had left but even then he could've had some firefighters or policemen driving those buses. or even maybe Jesse Jackso or Sean penn could've been called upon since they are both so smart. But le'ts not criticize the mayor becasue he is black and that would not pc. we have to put this on Bush cause he is an easy target.

someguy

09-13-2005, 09:02 PM

Oh Lynn, oh John. Maybe we're in partial agreement here on something :eek:

The state and local government failed, along with the federal government, but I don't like how people act like this is completely the state and local's fault and that they are the cause of it all. They aren't. Before the hurricane they had a mandatory evacuation, set up shelters among other things. I don't like how people talk as if the government went 'fuck you' to everyone. That didn't happen and they helped very well. Not well enough though, since their brains should have went into work about bad levees and their city being under sea level. Remember though, a mandatory evac was authorized before the storm hit so it's not like they were completely ignorant about it.

Is Bush/the government responsible for not preparing by giving funding towards the levees? Yes, but so is Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr, etc. since they did not accept funding either. I do believe though that if the levees were funded that people would complain about how much of a waste of money it was. Spending billions on a 'just in case' situation is not favored much, so everyone is a hypocrite about complaining on the levees. It's like pushing off an assignment that's due in months because there's plenty of time, and then you don't realize that it's too late.

The Federal government did a horrible response too. Don't give them immunity for the fuck ups of the local and state governments, they are just as much at fault, if not worse since they are the main power. It took days for them to actually send in food, water and other supplies to the people. Helicopters would completely ignore people asking for help. Three days later, and the Superdome among many other areas in NO didn't even have FEMA workers around. In fact, they weren't going to come for a while.

So what I'm saying is this. Do not just blame either the local/state governments or the federal government. Everyone is at fault here.

The Postmaster General

09-13-2005, 09:27 PM

One reason that people in the state and local level are yelling about the federal level is that when the water broke - Many of the police, fire department personelle, paramedics -- All those people got flooded too. Many of these people turned in badges from being overwelmed. That would have been a good time for the federal government to step in. There should have been an understanding that the state and local officials, who are on the front line --- they were, and are, also victims.

It would have been like 9/11 had the entire city been attacked and not just two buildings - surely we can't totally rely on the officials to do their job when they are screaming and in fear. A strong Uniion would recognize something like that, IMO.

Mr-Blonde

09-13-2005, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bush is a stand up guy taking responsiblbity for someting that was not even his job-

How is FEMA not a Federal organization? Why is is possible to airdrop rations to Afghanis and not Americans? And the only reason this "stand up guy" is traking responsibility now some 2 weeks after the hurricane is because his poll numers are the lowest of his presidency. If he's such a "stand-up" guy like you say when is he going to take some responsibility for the debaucle in Iraq that he engineered?

MacReady

09-13-2005, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bush is a stand up guy taking responsiblbity for someting that was not even his job

Yeah, it's certainly of no relevance or importance to the President of America whenever an American city gets attacked or destroyed.:rolleyes:

Lynn7

09-14-2005, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by someguy
Oh Lynn, oh John. Maybe we're in partial agreement here on something :eek:

The state and local government failed, along with the federal government, but I don't like how people act like this is completely the state and local's fault and that they are the cause of it all. They aren't. Before the hurricane they had a mandatory evacuation, set up shelters among other things. I don't like how people talk as if the government went 'fuck you' to everyone. That didn't happen and they helped very well. Not well enough though, since their brains should have went into work about bad levees and their city being under sea level. Remember though, a mandatory evac was authorized before the storm hit so it's not like they were completely ignorant about it.

Is Bush/the government responsible for not preparing by giving funding towards the levees? Yes, but so is Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr, etc. since they did not accept funding either. I do believe though that if the levees were funded that people would complain about how much of a waste of money it was. Spending billions on a 'just in case' situation is not favored much, so everyone is a hypocrite about complaining on the levees. It's like pushing off an assignment that's due in months because there's plenty of time, and then you don't realize that it's too late.

The Federal government did a horrible response too. Don't give them immunity for the fuck ups of the local and state governments, they are just as much at fault, if not worse since they are the main power. It took days for them to actually send in food, water and other supplies to the people. Helicopters would completely ignore people asking for help. Three days later, and the Superdome among many other areas in NO didn't even have FEMA workers around. In fact, they weren't going to come for a while.

So what I'm saying is this. Do not just blame either the local/state governments or the federal government. Everyone is at fault here.

It's not that I am giving the feds immunity but let's make an analogy. If the cash registers stop working at walmart does the district manager go in and fix everything or does he depend on the store manager or the floor manager to make things right. The store or floor manager will know who to call to get the registers fixed and how to schedule employees or how to handle the customers. The district mananger is probably more familiar with paper work and vendors than customer service.

I'm sure that the feds have the capacity to mobilize thousands of people (like military, national guard, otehr police forces etc) but it cannot be put together in a few days time. It's the locals who should know who to call and where to go and what they will need.

To tell you the truth I would not be blaming anyone exceot that people have been blaming Bush and so I am responding by saying if there is blame it is more local than fed. The real blame is that it is a nautural disaster and we all have to deal with those at some point. We do the best we can and try to figure things out as we go. I live inland so we don't deal so much with hurricanes but we do have the occasional tornado and lots of snow and ice storms that can become deadly. We are all at risk of going off the road on the black ice etc. We live with that risk. The gov sands but at times people still drive off even though the roads have been sanded. It's sad but it's nature at work.

someguy

09-14-2005, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's not that I am giving the feds immunity but let's make an analogy. If the cash registers stop working at walmart does the district manager go in and fix everything or does he depend on the store manager or the floor manager to make things right. The store or floor manager will know who to call to get the registers fixed and how to schedule employees or how to handle the customers. The district mananger is probably more familiar with paper work and vendors than customer service.

You're treating this as if it is such a small issue that the state and locals can take after. It isn't. The state and local people could not have handled this on their own, the federal government needed to step in. You do know that the mayor had to put in a formal request for any help to come in right? Doesn't that bother you? He has to put in a request for help to come for a city with 80% of it underwater, but a woman with mostly liquid for a brain in a hospice has the federal government taking over power that was just a state issue. I find that revolting.

I'm sure that the feds have the capacity to mobilize thousands of people (like military, national guard, otehr police forces etc) but it cannot be put together in a few days time. It's the locals who should know who to call and where to go and what they will need.

Oh, yes it can be done immediately. It's been done very fast before. Did 9/11 take 5 days for the army to come in? No it did not. Plus they had enough days to plan. You saying that the army and people in charge of taking care of disasters did not have enough time to get everything ready is basically them not doing their job.

To tell you the truth I would not be blaming anyone exceot that people have been blaming Bush and so I am responding by saying if there is blame it is more local than fed. The real blame is that it is a nautural disaster and we all have to deal with those at some point. We do the best we can and try to figure things out as we go. I live inland so we don't deal so much with hurricanes but we do have the occasional tornado and lots of snow and ice storms that can become deadly. We are all at risk of going off the road on the black ice etc. We live with that risk. The gov sands but at times people still drive off even though the roads have been sanded. It's sad but it's nature at work.

I disagree with you there. The federal government should be held responsible more. They have more power and it was a national disaster. September 11th was a more isolated incident, we're talking a city underwater here (and as Tai Mai Jew mentioned, smaller cities that were completely blown off the face of the earth). I hate using the 9/11 comparisons but I am just using it as in terms of federal response. Hell, that was an unexpected attack and it still had a better reaction than this so don't tell me that it takes lots of planning to get troops and supplies down there. The federal response was terrible, so was the local and state's handling.

outsyder

09-14-2005, 09:38 PM

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1123495&page=1

Amid Katrina Chaos, Congressman Used National Guard To Visit Home

Sept. 13, 3005 — Amid the chaos and confusion that engulfed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck, a congressman used National Guard troops to check on his property and rescue his personal belongings — even while New Orleans residents were trying to get rescued from rooftops, ABC News has learned.

On Sept. 2 — five days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast — Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who represents New Orleans and is a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was allowed through the military blockades set up around the city to reach the Superdome, where thousands of evacuees had been taken.

Military sources tells ABC News that Jefferson, an eight-term Democratic congressman, asked the National Guard that night to take him on a tour of the flooded portions of his congressional district. A five-ton military truck and a half dozen military police were dispatched.

Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard tells ABC News that during the tour, Jefferson asked that the truck take him to his home on Marengo Street, in the affluent uptown neighborhood in his congressional district. According to Schneider, this was not part of Jefferson's initial request.

Jefferson defended the expedition, saying he set out to see how residents were coping at the Superdome and in his neighborhood. He also insisted that he did not ask the National Guard to transport him.

"I did not seek the use of military assets to help me get around my city," Jefferson told ABC News. "There was shooting going on. There was sniping going on. They thought I should be escorted by some military guards, both to the convention center, the Superdome and uptown."

The water reached to the third step of Jefferson's house, a military source familiar with the incident told ABC News, and the vehicle pulled up onto Jefferson's front lawn so he wouldn't have to walk in the water. Jefferson went into the house alone, the source says, while the soldiers waited on the porch for about an hour.

Finally, according to the source, Jefferson emerged with a laptop computer, three suitcases, and a box about the size of a small refrigerator, which the enlisted men loaded up into the truck.

"I don't think there is any explanation for an elected official using resources for their own personal use, when those resources should be doing search and rescue, or they should be helping with law enforcement in the city," said Jerry Hauer, a homeland security expert and ABC News consultant.

Jefferson said the trip was entirely appropriate. It took only a few minutes to retrieve his belongings, he said, and the truck stayed at his house for an hour in part to assist neighbors.

"This wasn't about me going to my house. It was about me going to my district," he said.

Two Heavy Trucks and Helicopter Involved

The Louisiana National Guard tells ABC News the truck became stuck as it waited for Jefferson to retrieve his belongings.

Two weeks later, the vehicle's tire tracks were still visible on the lawn.

The soldiers signaled to helicopters in the air for aid. Military sources say a Coast Guard helicopter pilot saw the signal and flew to Jefferson's home. The chopper was already carrying four rescued New Orleans residents at the time.

A rescue diver descended from the helicopter, but the congressman decided against going up in the helicopter, sources say. The pilot sent the diver down again, but Jefferson again declined to go up the helicopter.

After spending approximately 45 minutes with Jefferson, the helicopter went on to rescue three additional New Orleans residents before it ran low on fuel and was forced to end its mission.

"Forty-five minutes can be an eternity to somebody that is drowning, to somebody that is sitting in a roof, and it needs to be used its primary purpose during an emergency," said Hauer.

Coast Guard Cmdr. Brendan McPherson told ABC News, "We did have an aircraft that responded to a signal of distress where the congressman was located. The congressman did decline rescue at the time so the helicopter picked up three other people.

"I can't comment on why the congressman decided not to go in the aircraft," McPherson said. "Did it take a little more time to send the rescue swimmer back a second time? Yes … You'd have to ask the congressman if it was a waste of time or not."

The Louisiana National Guard then sent a second five-ton truck to rescue the first truck, and Jefferson and his personal items were returned to the Superdome.

Schneider said he could not comment on whether the excursion was appropriate. "We're in no position to comment on an order given to a soldier. You're not going to get a statement from the Louisiana National Guard saying whether it was right or wrong. That was the mission we were assigned."

Jefferson insisted the expedition did not distract from rescue efforts.

"They actually picked up a lot of people while we were there," he said. "The young soldier said, 'It's a good thing we came up here because a lot of people would not have been rescued had we not been in the neighborhood.'"

Jefferson's Homes Searched in Unrelated Investigation

In an unrelated matter, authorities recently searched Jefferson's property as part of a federal investigation into the finances of a high-tech firm. Last month FBI officials raided Jefferson's house as well as his home in Washington, D.C., his car and his accountant's house.

Jefferson has not commented on that matter, except to say he is cooperating with the investigation. But he has emerged as a major voice in the post-Katrina political debate.

"The levee system that had protected New Orleans for hundreds of years had failed," he said on the House floor on Sept. 7. "Our city was inundated, 80 percent of it, with deadly water. Thousands of lives were lost, many drowned, trapped in their homes. Others were lost trying to escape the fury."

Last week, Jefferson set up a special trust fund for contributions to his legal defense in light of the FBI investigation. A senior federal law enforcement source tells ABC News that investigators are interested in learning if Jefferson moved any materials relevant to the investigation. Jefferson says he did not.

ABC News' Sarah H. Rosenberg, Chris Isham and Ted Gerstein contributed to this report.

someguy

09-14-2005, 10:41 PM

On CNN I saw video footage of Trent Lott using an army helicopter to go see the damage of his house literally the day after the hurricane hit.

So more than one politician is guilty of this.

Lynn7

09-15-2005, 07:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by someguy
[B]You're treating this as if it is such a small issue that the state and locals can take after. It isn't. The state and local people could not have handled this on their own, the federal government needed to step in. You do know that the mayor had to put in a formal request for any help to come in right? Doesn't that bother you? He has to put in a request for help to come for a city with 80% of it underwater, but a woman with mostly liquid for a brain in a hospice has the federal government taking over power that was just a state issue. I find that revolting.
__________________________________________________ ____

Yes- the state and locals had all the power and resources before the hurricane hit - they dhould not wait until afterwards to get everyone out. There should be a request so the feds don't overstep their authority- states rights are extremely important.

__________________________________________________ ___
Oh, yes it can be done immediately. It's been done very fast before. Did 9/11 take 5 days for the army to come in? No it did not. Plus they had enough days to plan. You saying that the army and people in charge of taking care of disasters did not have enough time to get everything ready is basically them not doing their job.
__________________________________________________ ___-

I remember on 9-11 looking at some very empty areas on tv where no one was there at all. I coauld't beleive it.Where are the firemen and the police? Even when rescue efforts began it was not all that big at first. It takes time to mobilize emergency crews and to put something into action that has only been formed in theory before the disaster. The time to take action was before the hurricane. That's what meterologists are for- they save lots of lives by their predictions- that is if people listen to them and evacuate.

__________________________________________________
I disagree with you there. The federal government should be held responsible more. They have more power and it was a national disaster. September 11th was a more isolated incident, we're talking a city underwater here (and as Tai Mai Jew mentioned, smaller cities that were completely blown off the face of the earth). I hate using the 9/11 comparisons but I am just using it as in terms of federal response. Hell, that was an unexpected attack and it still had a better reaction than this so don't tell me that it takes lots of planning to get troops and supplies down there. The federal response was terrible, so was the local and state's handling.
__________________________________________________ __-

Again, I dont' remember a great immediate response for 9-11 and I was glued to the tv set. Iremember looking at a place of desolation for quite a while.

The Postmaster General

09-15-2005, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Again, I dont' remember a great immediate response for 9-11 and I was glued to the tv set. Iremember looking at a place of desolation for quite a while.

Nearly 400 firefighters were killed in the towers trying to rescue people.

:confused:

someguy

09-15-2005, 08:29 PM

Bubs there kinda took the words out of my uh....hands since we don't use our mouths on the internet (unless you are one filthy person).

Let's use the quote that Nagin used here

"Did the tsunami survivors need a formal request? Did the 9/11 survivors need to get a formal request?"

I'm repeating myself here, but 80% of the city was underwater. If you expect or want things to go through normal procedure for something like that, you need to kind of rethink things. Help should have been sent in right away, which it didn't.

About 9/11, I remember how the military and other forces evacuated and closed off areas, gave out masks to people so they would not breathe the dust and such from the buildings along with health reports talking about the risks and such from breathing in any of the dust. Wasn't there people in there anyways like a day later? I mean, that was just two buildings (three if you count building 7) but we're talking an entire city.

I'm still being dumbfounded on people considering this a state or local issue.

The Heart Collector

09-17-2005, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bush is a stand up guy

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Lynn7

09-17-2005, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Nearly 400 firefighters were killed in the towers trying to rescue people.

:confused:

I meant after the buildings collapsed not before.Afterwards it was total desolation- no polie or firefighters in sight. I do remember much later some people were digging thry the debris to look for survivors but no response like the one in New Orleans. Much smaller.

The Postmaster General

09-18-2005, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I meant after the buildings collapsed not before.Afterwards it was total desolation- no polie or firefighters in sight. I do remember much later some people were digging thry the debris to look for survivors but no response like the one in New Orleans. Much smaller.

The military was there very quickly securing the city, shutting down bridges, sealing the area.

You are telling me that America was under attack and there was no military response on Ground Zero?

We must be talking about different 9/11s or something, because no one has ever said that there was a slow response there. And I doubt you have until you started arguing about the response in New Orleans.

Your arguement would appear as valid to me had you just said Godzilla was the only one to respons during 9/11. No police or firefighters in sight, huh? I didn't realize you were actually there.

Lynn7

09-18-2005, 01:24 PM

Let's look at the tapes from that day. Then we can see. Now, where can we find those tapes?

The Postmaster General

09-18-2005, 03:29 PM

Well, first off, the country was considered under attack. There was plenty of response, but even still - the timeline would be much different compared to a hurricane. It isn't like they were worried that some of Katrina's friends might show up to help break down some more levees, or that maybe now that the hurricanes hit, the Tornados might take the opportunity to get us with our guard down.

But anyway there's plenty of video evidence out there - and everyone has seen it. You aren't going to get anywhere with the - "Well, we'll never know." routine. I just did an image search, and what I found was plenty of activity following the collapse.

Bush said that the response to Katrina was poor compared to 9/11, so that just about covers it for me.

As Heart Collector has pointed out below, you are diving into the realm of fantasy with your counter-points. IMO, you are disgracing the brave men and women who gave ample and adequate response during 9/11. They ran into a war zone --- With Katrina, the feds wouldn't even run into a flood zone.

The Heart Collector

09-18-2005, 03:33 PM

Lynn, what the hell are you talking about anymore?!? Gawd.

Lynn7

09-19-2005, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Well, first off, the country was considered under attack. There was plenty of response, but even still - the timeline would be much different compared to a hurricane. It isn't like they were worried that some of Katrina's friends might show up to help break down some more levees, or that maybe now that the hurricanes hit, the Tornados might take the opportunity to get us with our guard down.

But anyway there's plenty of video evidence out there - and everyone has seen it. You aren't going to get anywhere with the - "Well, we'll never know." routine. I just did an image search, and what I found was plenty of activity following the collapse.

Bush said that the response to Katrina was poor compared to 9/11, so that just about covers it for me.

As Heart Collector has pointed out below, you are diving into the realm of fantasy with your counter-points. IMO, you are disgracing the brave men and women who gave ample and adequate response during 9/11. They ran into a war zone --- With Katrina, the feds wouldn't even run into a flood zone.

I am not saying that they did not respond but there was a lonnnnng lapse time where everyone was just totally in shock and nothing much was going on. I remember ocming home to watch it on TV and nothing was happening- I'llnever forget it! Sure things picked up after a time but you cna't have a catastrophe and have instant salvation- it just does not happen. It is people's expectations that are unreal. My husband was stuck down in Florida for a week when that happened cause they shut down the planes for that long. Is that a good response- shutting down the airlines for many days? It takes time to adjust when calamity comes even if you think you have prepared for it.

Mr-Blonde

09-19-2005, 03:40 PM

How's this for a looong lapse?

Key military help for victims of Hurricane Katrina was delayed

By Drew Brown, Seth Borenstein and Alison Young / Knight Ridder

WASHINGTON - Two days after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, President Bush went on national television to announce a massive federal rescue and relief effort.

But orders to move didn't reach key active military units for another three days.

Once they received them, it took just eight hours for 3,600 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., to be on the ground in Louisiana and Mississippi with vital search-and-rescue helicopters. Another 2,500 soon followed from the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas.

"If the 1st Cav and 82nd Airborne had gotten there on time, I think we would have saved some lives," said Gen. Julius Becton Jr., who was the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Reagan from 1985 to 1989. "We recognized we had to get people out, and they had helicopters to do that."

Federal officials have long known that the active-duty military is the only organization with the massive resources and effective command structure to handle a major catastrophe.

In a 1996 Pentagon report, the Department of Defense acknowledged its large role in major disasters. Between 1992 and 1996, the Pentagon provided support in 18 disasters and developed five training manuals on how to work with FEMA and civilians in natural disasters.

"In catastrophic disasters, DOD will likely provide Hurricane Andrew-levels of support and predominately operate in urban or suburban terrain," the report said. "This should be incorporated into planning assumptions."

The delay this time in tapping the troops, helicopters, trucks, generators, communications and other resources of the 1st Cavalry and the 82nd Airborne is the latest example of how the federal response to Katrina lacked organization and leadership. And it raises further questions about the government's ability to rapidly mobilize the active-duty military now that FEMA has been absorbed into the massive, terrorism-focused Department of Homeland Security.

Addressing the nation on Thursday night in a speech from New Orleans, Bush said the storm overwhelmed the disaster relief system. "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces, the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice," he said.

Several emergency response experts, however, questioned whether Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff understood how much authority they had to tap all the resources of the federal government - including those of the Department of Defense.

"To say I've suddenly discovered the military needs to be involved is like saying wheels should be round instead of square," said Michael Greenberger, a law professor and the director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health and Homeland Security.

During the last great hurricane - Andrew in 1992 - the failure to get food, water and shelter to Florida and to victims highlighted the importance of quickly engaging the Department of Defense.

"For such disasters, DOD is the only organization capable of providing, transporting and distributing sufficient quantities of items needed," the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, wrote in a 1993 report. It noted that the military has storehouses of food and temporary shelters, contingency planning skills, command capability - as well as the helicopters and other transportation needed to get them to a disaster scene fast.

Indeed, the new National Response Plan, the nation's blueprint for responding to disasters that was unveiled with much fanfare in January by Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, includes a section on responding to catastrophic events.

"Unless it can be credibly established that a mobilizing Federal resource ... is not needed at the catastrophic incident venue, that resource deploys," the plan says. The plan and a 2003 presidential directive put Chertoff, as Homeland Security secretary, in charge of coordinating the federal response.

Chertoff, who aides said has been engaged in the response to Hurricane Katrina, went to Atlanta the day after the storm hit for a previously scheduled briefing on avian flu. Aides also concede that Washington officials were unable to confirm that the levees in New Orleans had failed until midday on Aug. 30. The breaches were first discovered in Louisiana some 32 hours earlier.

Greenberger, the Maryland homeland security expert, said he wonders whether Chertoff and other top federal officials understand the National Response Plan or even had read it before Katrina.

"Everything he did and everything he has said strongly suggests that that plan was never read," Greenberger said of Chertoff.

Chertoff was in Gulfport, Miss., on Friday to participate in the Harrison County National Day of Prayer and Remembrance. He took no questions from reporters. Homeland Security officials didn't return calls for comment.

Also on Friday, Bush said he thinks Congress should examine what role the military can and should play in natural disasters.

"It's important for us to learn from the storm what could have been done better," Bush said during a question-and-answer session with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "This storm will give us an opportunity to review all different types of circumstances to make sure that, you know, the president has the capacity to react."

Former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who served under President Clinton, believes that the Bush administration is mistaken if it thinks there are impediments to using the military for non-policing help in a disaster.

"When we were there and FEMA was intact, the military was a resource to us," said Witt. "We pulled them in very quickly. I don't know what rule he (Bush) talked about. ... We used military assets a lot."

Jamie Gorelick, the deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration who also was a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks, said clear legal guidelines have been in place for using the military on U.S. soil since at least 1996, when the Justice Department was planning for the Olympic Games in Atlanta.

"It's not like people hadn't thought about this," Gorelick said. "This is not new. We've had riots. We've had floods. We've had the loss of police control over communities.

"I'm puzzled as to what happened here," she said.

Scott Silliman, a former judge advocate general who's now the executive director of Duke University Law School's Center for Law, Ethics and National Security, said he was surprised that military forces weren't on the scene more quickly after Hurricane Katrina.

"I see no impediment in law or in policy to getting them there," Silliman said. "We could have sent in helicopters. We could have sent in forces to do search and rescue and to provide humanitarian aid. Everything but law enforcement."

He said someone failed to pull the trigger, but he added that an investigation is needed by an independent commission to determine who's to blame.

"They're trying to say that greater federal authority would have made a difference," said George Haddow, a former FEMA deputy chief of staff and the co-author of a textbook on emergency management. "The reality is that the feds are the ones that screwed up in the first place. It's not about authority. It's about leadership. ... They've got all the authority already."

The Postmaster General

09-19-2005, 03:41 PM

I still just don't see how you've shown that the federal response was poor during 9/11, or at least as good as it was during Katrina.

It would same that the burdon of proof is in your hands too, considering President Bush stated that the Katrina response was weak compared to 9/11. Well, not in those words, but he definately asserted it was.

Mr-Blonde

09-22-2005, 01:09 PM

Sorry about posting yet another article, but I found this one to be very enlightening. It's rather lengthy but Bush apologists in particular should take note:

Who Lost New Orleans?

source: BushWatch.com (http://www.bushwatch.net/partridge.htm)

by Ernest Partridge

“If some people are foolish enough to live below sea level, or in flood plains, or in earthquake zones, why should the rest of us bail them out when an expected disaster strikes?”

It’s an old complaint revived, of course, by the catastrophe visited upon the Gulf states by Hurricane Katrina. It states, in effect, that the citizens of New Orleans and other devastated communities in the region are have only themselves to blame for their misfortune.

Similarly, prudent individuals will not chose to live alongside great rivers like the Mississippi, or along active tectonic zones (i.e., the entire Pacific coast), or in eastern cities such as New York, which attract terrorists, or in the St. Louis/Memphis region, the site of the New Madrid earthquake of 1812 – the most violent US earthquake in recorded history . I guess we should all pack up and move to Kansas instead.

Oh wait! They have tornadoes, don’t they?

Who is Responsible for New Orleans’ Safety?

The free-market absolutist libertarian right proclaims, in Ayn Rand’s words, that “there is no such entity as .. ‘the public’ ... only a number of individual men.” (Rand: “The Objectivist Ethics”). Thus the optimal society emerges “automatically,” through an unregulated free market, from the self-serving economic activity of individuals and families.

By extension, apologists for the Bush Administration’s neglect of the pre-Katrina safety and the post-Katrina recovery seem to be telling us that “there is no such entity as ‘the nation,’ there are only states and ‘regions,’ whose responsibility it is to look after their own safety and recovery.

This policy is articulated in an e-mail of uncertain origin that I received last week, which states a now-familiar cop-out of the Bush-defense team:

In case you aren’t familiar with how our government is supposed to work: the chain of responsibility for the protection of the citizens of New Orleans is:

1. The Mayor of New Orleans
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security.
3. The Governor of Louisiana
4. The [Secretary] of Homeland Security.
5. The President of the United States.

The e-mail message then proceeds to argue that due to the alleged blunders of the Mayor and the Governor, the Secretary and the President are absolved of responsibility for the horror that followed the hurricane. This, we are told, was a city problem and a state problem, not a national problem. As is now more than obvious, this excuse (along with “this not the time to play the blame game”) has become the standard talking point of the Bush apologists.

In fact, when a Governor asks the President to declare a federal state of emergency (as Governor Blanco did two days before landfall) and the President agrees (as Bush did the same day), the above-listed “chain of responsibility” is reversed and “the buck stops” at the President’s desk. This procedure is explicitly stated in the “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD5" issued and signed by George Bush in February 28, 2003, which you can read here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html) (see paragraph 4). Media reports and right-wing punditry to the contrary notwithstanding, the Mayor and the Governor fulfilled their responsibilities, albeit imperfectly.

The right, with its concept of “the nation” as a collage of autonomous states and regions, perceives a devastated gulf region as comparable to a diseased branch on a tree. Cut off the branch, and the tree will be no worse off, and perhaps more healthy. Thus: “It’s too bad about what happened to New Orleans, and maybe we’ll be charitable and send them some aid. But, once again, it is ultimately the fault of the people in New Orleans because they willingly chose to live in a sub-sea-level bowl.”

On the other hand, progressives and economically informed Republicans see New Orleans and the Gulf region as vital organs of the body politic and of the economy of the United States. Thus damage to this regional part is damage to the entire nation.

For the fact of the matter is that New Orleans is an “inevitable city” – a geographic/economic necessity. The Mississippi River drains two-thirds of the 48 contiguous states, and within its watershed most of the nation’s agricultural products are produced. And, now that we have “outsourced” most of our manufacturing base, agricultural products are our primary export, offsetting the United States’ huge (and unsustainable) trade deficit. Down the Mississippi and its tributaries, barges full of the bounty of American farms are towed toward the Gulf of Mexico, and to the necessary Gulf port at the Mississippi delta. At the same time, essential imports arrive at this port – by tonnage, the largest port in the US and the fifth largest in the world. In addition, from the state of Louisiana, the United states gets fifteen percent of its domestic petroleum and 27% of its natural gas. As George Friedman writes in his excellent article, “New Orleans: A Geopolitical prize” before Katrina struck, “New Orleans was, in many ways, the pivot of the American Economy,” and, he adds, “there are no good shipping alternatives.” The cargo ships can go no further upstream, and downstream are swamps and wetlands that prevent development.

In short, the port of New Orleans is an indispensable national asset. Its loss, while an inconsolable tragedy to its residents, now scattered around the nation, is also an economic hardship to all Americans, and to millions abroad – as we are all about to discover.

And so, the response to the opening taunt – “it’s their fault for living in a disaster-prone region” – is simple and straightforward: someone had to live there, and because the entire nation has benefited from the city and port of New Orleans, it is appropriate that the entire nation should invest in its reconstruction and assist in the rehabilitation of its unfortunate residents.

Similar considerations apply to the Pacific coast with its seismic hazards, and the Northwest with the additional threat of volcanoes. The national economy requires Pacific seaports, along with the timber of the Northwest and the agricultural production of California’s incomparably fertile central valley. And so, if disaster strikes, compensation to the victims is appropriate.

Any politician who believes that these regions are autonomous and economically detachable and thus not the responsibility of the federal government is unqualified for national leadership. To the great misfortune of the United States, such individuals are nonetheless in political control of the federal government.

Why a Federal Emergency Management Agency?

Why shouldn’t the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana take full responsibility for “emergency management.” Why should there be a Federal agency charged with such tasks?

Answer: for the same reason that cities have fire departments. Just as some fires can not be controlled by individual home owners, some disasters are of a scale that overwhelm municipal and state capacities. Often these disasters, like Katrina, affect several states, and in such cases the only political entity qualified to deal with multi-state disasters is the federal government.

It is conceivable, of course, that each state might invest in massive, federal-scale, emergency response facilities, just as each homeowner might purchase and park a $100,000 fire truck in his driveway, “just in case.” But the irrationality of both procedures is immediately obvious. Neither is cost-effective. While a fire in your home is unlikely, the probability of fires breaking out somewhere in a city is sufficiently high to justify a municipal fire department that is frequently engaged in fire-fighting and constantly prepared to respond anywhere in the city, including, of course, your home. Similarly, the minimal annual probability of a Katrina-scale disaster in any particular state is not worth the investment of fifty large-scale separate “just-in-case” response facilities. However, if we multiply the low-probability of a disaster in each state by fifty, we then have a justification for an in-place and “at the ready” federal agency such as FEMA. In short: fifty multi-billion dollar agencies for each state is folly; one multi-billion dollar agency for all states is rational.

Just as most home fires can be put out with a fire extinguisher or a garden hose, most disasters can be managed with municipal and state agencies. But for those rare and massive events, such as Katrina and the much-anticipated major California earthquake, a coordinated national response is imperative. As evidence for this claim, just contrast the effectiveness of FEMA under James Lee Witt during the Clinton administration with that of the crony-ridden fiasco of FEMA under Bush.

So Who Lost New Orleans?

None of the leading official players in this tragic drama are totally blameless – each one, “if they had it to do over again” would respond differently and more effectively. But that does not mean that each responsible official is equally culpable. Despite false media reports to the contrary (notably by The Washington Post and Newsweek), Governor Blanco declared a state of emergency on August 26, three days before the hurricane made landfall. The following morning she requested Bush to declare a federal state of emergency, which Bush granted, following which Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and FEMA Director Michael Brown were inexcusably unresponsive for the next two days. Mayor Nagin’s mandatory evacuation order proved to be too little and too late (by a whole day). Subsequent events would show that FEMA, severely incapacitated by Bush Administration cutbacks, the loss of key professional personnel, and management by unqualified political appointees, was worse than ineffective as it refused assistance by relief agencies such as the Red Cross and numerous municipal police and fire departments, and blocked assistance to victims by volunteers. (For a detailed timeline with links to validating documents, see Salon.com’s “Timeline to Disaster” (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/15/katrina_timeline/index_np.html)).

George Bush’s remark to CBS’s Diane Sawyer that “I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," is contradicted by numerous studies and media reports. In fact, the flooding of New Orleans was long-anticipated and feared, and aggressive flood control measures were proposed to Congress. All were slashed by the Bush Administration to small fractions of the amounts requested. (See Will Bunch: “Why the Levee Broke” (http://alternet.org/story/24871/)).

It is impossible to determine with certainty whether a repaired and improved levee system could have spared New Orleans from this Category Four hurricane. If it could not, then the answer to the question “who lost New Orleans” must be “Katrina.” If fully-funded and fully installed levees would have held, then the answer to “who lost New Orleans is clearly the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress which refused to fund the repair and re-enforcement of the levees.

But Katrina was two disasters: one natural – the hurricane, and the other administrative – the botched relief effort that followed. And for that second disaster the fault lies squarely with the Bush Administration and its under-funded and atrociously administered Federal Emergency Management Agency. The message of the Bush spin-machine, and much of its enabling media, is that the blame lies with Governor Blanco and Mayer Negin. But the documented evidence, available on the internet for all to see refutes this allegation.

At the root of the second, post-storm, disaster is the right-wing’s visceral distrust of government: the Reaganite conviction that “government is not the solution, government is the problem,” and the Bushite proclamation that “you can spend your money more wisely than the federal government can.” (Bush in the second debate, 2000). As Thom Hartmann has observed, “You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government." Katrina has proved that because the Busheviks don’t believe in government, they can’t govern. And so, faced with a regional crisis with devastating impacts upon the national economy, the Bush administration was incapable of acting effectively in the national interest. Indeed, they are scarcely capable of recognizing the very existence of a “national interest” apart from the separate interests of privileged individuals and corporations.

It is difficult to find any silver lining in Katrina’s storm clouds. But if there is any, it might be the dawning public realization that there are good reasons why no civilized society is without a government – why our founders recognized that an enlightened government, “deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed,” exists, in the words of our Constitution, to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Those who dare to call themselves “conservatives” would have us believe otherwise.