PDA

View Full Version : death and destruction in New Orleans


TheSpleen
09-05-2005, 01:16 PM
Dissent in this country is sorely needed right now. This is not about blaming this political party, or that political party. It's about the real consequences of what governments do and don't do about their responsibilities; and about who winds up paying the price for those policies.

One of the main reasons New Orleans is so vulnerable to hurricanes is the gradual disappearance of the wetlands on the Gulf Coast that once stood as a natural buffer between the city and storms coming in from the water. Many environmentalists will tell you more than a century's interference with the natural flow of the Mississippi is the root cause of the problem, cutting off the movement of alluvial soil to the river's delta. Last year, four environmental groups cooperated on a joint report showing the Bush administration's policies had allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands. It is a fact that the Clinton administration set some tough policies on wetlands, and it is a fact that the Bush administration repealed those policies - ordering federal agencies to stop protecting as many as 20 million acres of wetlands. Bush's total lack of concern for the environment of the world we live in is all too obvious. The United States was virtually alone in rejecting the Kyoto protocols - and it's important to note that this was against the will of the majority of Americans, who indeed support the Kyoto protocols.

Some of you might recall a headline a couple of weeks ago, about John Bolton - who was appointed UN ambassador without Senate approval - and his last-minute 750 amendments to the UN reform draft. The document was only 39 pages long. One of his amendments was his scratching out the line "respect for nature" on page 1. ( http://www.un.org/ga/59/hlpm_rev.2.pdf ) This just further illustrates our administrations complete lack of concern for the Earth, and it's all too easy to continue.

One of the more errant remarks Bush has made recently, was when he said on Good Morning America, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees". He is obviously either denying the truth, or unaware of the massive documentation that showed that the levees badly needed upgrading, and it was well known that they could not withstand more than a category 3 hurricane. If Katrina hadn't hit New Orleans, then people might have eventually forgotten all about this important fact - In June of this year, 2005, Bush took his axe and chopped $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. As was reported in New Orleans CityBusiness at the time, that meant "major hurricane and flood projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now." I don't know if there is a clearer illustration of Bush's indifference to the New Orleans situation, or his burden of responsibility. When Bush observed the devastation around New Orleans, he said that "the Gulf Coast looks like it has been obliterated by a weapon.". He was correct. Indifference is a weapon of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is directly related to the devastation left by the hurricane. About 35 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is now serving in Iraq, where four out of every 10 soldiers are guardsmen. Recruiting for the Guard is also down significantly because people are afraid of being sent to Iraq if they join, leaving the Guard even more short-handed. The levees of New Orleans, two of which broke and flooded the city, were also victims of Iraq war spending. Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, said on June 8, 2004, "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq." The Louisiana National Guard also notes that dozens of its high-water vehicles, Humvees, refuelers and generators have also been sent abroad.

It's all to easy to find fault with our federal government, whose job it is to prevent these kinds of disasters from happening. We have the Department of "Homeland Security", whose "primary mission is to protect our homeland". (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=59&content=378) It was created in early 2002 by the President, whose "most important job is to protect and defend the American people". (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/book.pdf) That's the first line in the DHS statement released by the President in June 2002, and it's even underlined. It was made a massive bureaucracy, which now includes FEMA. The threat of natural disasters, like hurricanes, has been greatly overlooked, and funding for those threats greatly depleted, due to the pressing "threat of terrorism". You can read right on FEMA's website: "Billions of dollars of new funding were directed to FEMA to help communities face the threat of terrorism.". (http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm paragraph 9)

The threat of terrorism is minuscule - actually, microscopic, compared to the potential devastation of a hurricane - which is now quite obvious. What does the DHS exist for? Primarily to remind us of this awesome "threat" of terrorism, and to keep the country in fear. And it costs billions of dollars to run it. You can look on the front page of the DHS website, and right there in the upper right-hand corner, you can check the terror threat level. Right now we are at yellow, which I think we've been at for a while. It is necessary to manipulate fear, and keep the country frightened, so that the President can gain support to use force in areas of the world to achieve his objectives. (Those objectives are important to pay attention to, but a topic for another discussion.)

Saddam Hussein was not feared anywhere in the world. He was despised, and rightly so, but not feared. His own neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, countries that he invaded, didn't fear him. It is only in the United States that he was feared, and that didn't happen until after a massive propaganda campaign started by Bush in September 2002. He had to create this evil monster, who would certainly destroy us tomorrow if we didn't get him today. 200 billion dollars later, look where we're at. Funds for prevention of real, genuine threats have been depleted, and now, many Americans are suffering, and many are dead, from a catastrophe which could have been avoided. This, from the richest country in the world. The world's only superpower. I know we can do better. The real question is, when will the rest of America wake up, and start paying attention to politics? We need to keep talking about it.

The Postmaster General
09-05-2005, 05:54 PM
It's easier for the majority of the country to connect with a made-up boogieman, than it is for the to connect with real events. Everyone is scared of the boogie man -- maybe less that 15% of the population has live through disasters of this scale. I don't know the real numbers.

The main tragedy I have found during this disaster was in seeing people's quickness in one-sidedness and lack of sympathy beyond just feeling bad that people can't watch Everybody Loves Raymond this week.

I really don't think the people of NO knew the threat of the levees. I'd heard it was supposed to be designed up to a CAT-5 storm (???) --- Bush knew and he's even falling back on the "I dind't know excuse" --- Most people in cities have little ideas how the infrastructure works - Most people don't pay attention to their states budget requests. Many people are throwing "They should have known" to belittle the people of New Orleans for ending up in worse situations, but I just don't think they should have known. The only evacuations made were to high ground - it wasn't until the levees broke that anyone said "Oh shit - We need to get the fuck out of here.:" (figuratively speaking that is....)

The saddest part of all this, but I think the part that might be our only majority population will start waking up - Seeing the words america and 3rd world being used so often together by foriegn media.

Mr-Blonde
09-06-2005, 02:20 PM
Just wanted to say that I agree wholeheartedly w/ your remarks. It infuriates me that this administration is trying to play dumb about the fact that these levees were bound to fail. On Sept. 12, 2001 the government compiled a list of the most likely to occur disasters facing the US. New Orleans and it's antiquated levee systems were at the top of that list. When they tried to secure federal funding to improve the levees it was repealed by the Bush administration. They only needed approximately 14 billion to do the job, a far cry shorter than what the costs will be now. Yet Bush can spend all kinds of money on this ridiculous "War on Terror" that is benefitting nobody besides his oil baron and defense contractor ghoul buddies. Now we have all kinds of dumbasses attempting to defend his administration's incredible shortsightedness with the weak excuse that nobody could've forseen this event. This never would've happened in an affluent white community. Never-- not in a million years.

TheSpleen
09-09-2005, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The main tragedy I have found during this disaster was in seeing people's quickness in one-sidedness and lack of sympathy beyond just feeling bad that people can't watch Everybody Loves Raymond this week.

I really don't think the people of NO knew the threat of the levees. I'd heard it was supposed to be designed up to a CAT-5 storm (???) --- Bush knew and he's even falling back on the "I dind't know excuse" --- Most people in cities have little ideas how the infrastructure works - Most people don't pay attention to their states budget requests. Many people are throwing "They should have known" to belittle the people of New Orleans for ending up in worse situations, but I just don't think they should have known. The only evacuations made were to high ground - it wasn't until the levees broke that anyone said "Oh shit - We need to get the fuck out of here.:" (figuratively speaking that is....)

I agree with you. Lack of empathy is certainly prevalent at a level that is astounding. People are quick to judge the ones who remained in NO through the storm - not critically thinking about why they might have remained. The majority of those people are poor. It is hard for most people who are not poor to relate to those who are. They can't grasp the fact that many people had no means of evacuation. The people who remained were quickly labeled as "stubborn" or "stupid", by people enjoying peace and comfort in their safe and sound homes. I've seen many people go so far as to say, "well, they shouldn't have lived in NO in the first place... being located where it is", and "no one should ever live in NO again". Cheap, easy, ignorant, and comfortable remarks to make.

I'm sure you're right about the citizens of NO not knowing the conditions of the levees. Most of them probably don't know what a levee is. All of that is irrelevant of course. I haven't seen people saying that the citizens "should have known" about the condition of the levees - but trying to belittle them with remarks like that is just heartless beyond belief. Also, when the evacuation order was given by the mayor, there was no public announcement and warning by him, the governor, or anyone else that I know of, that the levees were going to fail and that there would be massive flooding, as the likelihood was known. Again, irrelevant to my point. There were people who knew all about the condition of the levees - people in positions of power and authority that could have seen to improvement of the levees, and prevented this catastrophe, as I noted earlier.

outsyder
09-10-2005, 12:51 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding?

He did slash funding for levee projects. But the Army Corps of Engineers says Katrina was just too strong.

September 2, 2005


Some critics are suggesting President Bush was as least partly responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. In a widely quoted opinion piece, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal says that "the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature," and cites years of reduced funding for federal flood-control projects around New Orleans.

Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local officials had been complaining about that for years.

It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects would have made any difference, however, and we're not in a position to judge that. The Army Corps of Engineers – which is under the President's command and has its own reputation to defend – insists that Katrina was just too strong, and that even if the levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane.
Analysis



We suspect this subject will get much more attention in Congress and elsewhere in the coming months. Without blaming or absolving Bush, here are the key facts we've been able to establish so far:

Bush Cut Funding

Blumenthal's much-quoted article in salon.com carried the headline: "No one can say they didn't see it coming." And it said the Bush administration cut flood-control funding "to pay for the Iraq war."

He continues:

Blumenthal: With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico . But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.

…By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year…forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.

We can confirm that funding was cut. The project most closely associated with preventing flooding in New Orleans was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Hurricane Protection Project, which was “designed to protect residents between Lake Pontchartrain and the Missisippi River levee from surges in Lake Pontchartrain,” according to a fact sheet from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (The fact sheet is dated May 23, long before Katrina). The multi-decade project involved building new levees, enlarging existing levees, and updating other protections like floodwalls. It was scheduled to be completed in 2015.

Over at least the past several budget cycles, the Corps has received substantially less money than it requested for the Lake Pontchartrain project, even though Congress restored much of the money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested.

In fiscal year 2004, the Corps requested $11 million for the project. The President’s budget allocated $3 million, and Congress furnished $5.5 million. Similarly, in fiscal 2005 the Corps requested $22.5 million, which the President cut to $3.9 million in his budget. Congress increased that to $5.5 million. “This was insufficient to fund new construction contracts,” according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project fact sheet. The Corps reported that “seven new contracts are being delayed due to lack funds” [sic].

The President proposed $3 million for the project in the budget for fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. 1. “This will be insufficient to fund new construction projects,” the fact sheet stated. It says the Corps “could spend $20 million if funds were provided.” The Corps of Engineers goes on to say:

Army Corps of Engineers, May 23: In Orleans Parish, two major pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from addressing these pressing needs.

The Corps has seen cutbacks beyond those affecting just the Lake Pontchartrain project. The Corps oversees SELA, or the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control project, which Congress authorized after six people died from flooding in May 1995. The Times-Picayune newspaper of New Orleans reported that, overall, the Corps had spent $430 million on flood control and hurricane prevention, with local governments offering more than $50 million toward the project. Nonetheless, "at least $250 million in crucial projects remained," the newspaper said.

In the past five years, the amount of money spent on all Corps construction projects in the New Orleans district has declined by 44 percent, according to the New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper, from $147 million in 2001 to $82 million in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

A long history of complaints

Local officials had long complained that funding for hurricane protection projects was inadequate:

*
October 13, 2001: The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that “federal officials are postponing new projects of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Program, or SELA, fearing that federal budget constraints and the cost of the war on terrorism may create a financial pinch for the program.” The paper went on to report that “President Bush’s budget proposed $52 million” for SELA in the 2002 fiscal year. The House approved $57 million and the Senate approved $62 million. Still, “the $62 million would be well below the $80 million that corps officials estimate is needed to pay for the next 12 months of construction, as well as design expenses for future projects.”
*
April 24, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that “less money is available to the Army Corps of Engineers to build levees and water projects in the Missisippi River valley this year and next year.” Meanwhile, an engineer who had direct the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study – a study of how to restore coastal wetlands areas in order to provide a bugger from hurricane storm surges – was sent to Iraq "to oversee the restoration of the ‘Garden of Eden’ wetlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers,” for which President Bush’s 2005 gave $100 million.
*
June 8, 2004: Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the Times-Picayune:

Walter Maestri: It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq , and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

*
September 22, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that a pilot study on raising the height of the levees surrounding New Orleans had been completed and generated enough information for a second study necessary to estimate the cost of doing so. The Bush administration “ordered the New Orleans district office” of the Army Corps of Engineers “not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money.”
*
June 6, 2005: The New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper reported that the New Orleans district of the Corps was preparing for a $71.2 million reduction in overall funding for the fiscal year beginning in October. That would have been the largest single-year funding loss ever. They noted that money “was so tight" that "the New Orleans district, which employs 1,300 people, instituted a hiring freeze last month on all positions,” which was “the first of its kind in about 10 years.”

Would Increased Funding Have Prevented Flooding?

Blumenthal implies that increased funding might have helped to prevent the catastrophic flooding that New Orleans now faces. The White House denies that, and the Corps of Engineers says that even the levee project they were working to complete was not designed to withstand a storm of Katrina's force.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, at a press briefing on September 1, dismissed the idea that the President inadequately funded flood control projects in New Orleans :

McClellan: Flood control has been a priority of this administration from day one. We have dedicated an additional $300 million over the last few years for flood control in New Orleans and the surrounding area. And if you look at the overall funding levels for the Army Corps of Engineers, they have been slightly above $4.5 billion that has been signed by the President.

Q: Local people were asking for more money over the last couple of years. They were quoted in local papers in 2003 and 2004, are saying that they were told by federal officials there wasn't enough money because it was going to Iraq expenditures.

McClellan: You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's talked to some reporters already and talked about some of these issues. I think some people maybe have tried to make a suggestion or imply that certain funding would have prevented the flooding from happening, and he has essentially said there's been nothing to suggest that whatsoever, and it's been more of a design issue with the levees.

We asked the Corps about that “design issue.” David Hewitt, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said McClellan was referring to the fact that “the levees were designed for a category 3 hurricane.” He told us that, consequently, “when it became apparent that this was a category 5 hurricane, an evacuation of the city was ordered.” (A category 3 storm has sustained winds of no more than 130 miles per hour, while a category 5 storm has winds exceeding 155 miles per hour. Katrina had winds of 160 mph as it approached shore, but later weakened to winds of 140 mph as it made landfall, making it a strong category 4 storm, according to the National Hurricane Center.)

The levee upgrade project around Lake Pontchartrain was only 60 to 90 percent complete across most areas of New Orleans as of the end of May, according to the Corps' May 23 fact sheet. Still, even if it had been completed, the project's goal was protecting New Orleans from storm surges up to "a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane,” according to the fact sheet.

We don't know whether the levees would have done better had the work been completed. But the Corps says that even a completed levee project wasn't designed for the storm that actually occurred.

Nobody anticipated breach of the levees?

In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on September 1, President Bush said:

Bush: I don’t think anyone anticipated breach of the levees …Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.

Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.

Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:

Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think they would actually be breached.

And while Bush is also technically correct that the Corps did not "anticipate" a breach – in the sense that they believed it was a likely event – at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a possibility worth examining.

According to the Times-Picayune, early in Bush's first term FEMA director Joe Allbaugh ordered a sophisticated computer simulation of what would happen if a category 5 storm hit New Orleans. Joseph Suhayda, an engineer at Louisana State University who worked on the project, described to the newspaper in 2002 what the simulation showed could happen:

Subhayda: Another scenario is that some part of the levee would fail. It's not something that's expected. But erosion occurs, and as levees broke, the break will get wider and wider. The water will flow through the city and stop only when it reaches the next higher thing. The most continuous barrier is the south levee, along the river. That's 25 feet high, so you'll see the water pile up on the river levee.

Whether or not a "breach" was "anticipated," the fact is that many individuals have been warning for decades about the threat of flooding that a hurricane could pose to a set below sea level and sandwiched between major waterways. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report from before September 11, 2001 detailed the three most likely catastrophic disasters that could happen in the United States: a terrorist attack in New York, a strong earthquake in San Francisco, and a hurricane strike in New Orleans. In 2002, New Orleans officials held the simulation of what would happen in a category 5 storm. Walter Maestri, the emergency coordinator of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans , recounted the outcome to PBS’ NOW With Bill Moyers:

Maestri, September 2002: Well, when the exercise was completed it was evidence that we were going to lose a lot of people. We changed the name of the [simulated] storm from Delaney to K-Y-A-G-B... kiss your ass goodbye... because anybody who was here as that category five storm came across... was gone.

--by Matthew Barge

The Postmaster General
09-10-2005, 01:54 AM
Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.


Yeah, even Bush is confused about what was supposed to happne.

He is actually saying that they didn't think there'd be any flooding. Bush could learn more just by reading the joblo.com forums.