OT - The End of New Orleans
 

First: I'm not going to quote everything. I'll quote this:

The strain was apparent in other ways. Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, dropped his head and cried on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"The guy who runs this building I'm in, emergency management, he's responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home, and every day she called him and said, 'Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?' And he said, 'And yeah, Momma, somebody's coming to get you. Somebody's coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody's coming to get you Thursday. Somebody's coming to get you on Friday' - and she drowned Friday night. She drowned on Friday night," Broussard said.

"Nobody's coming to get her, nobody's coming to get her. The secretary's promise, everybody's promise. They've had press conferences - I'm sick of the press conferences. For God's sakes, shut up and send us somebody."

Second:

The End of New Orleans

[Poem removed by author]

Also: Watch this. Watch it.

Bob Schieffer's Personal Thought on Katrina's Aftermath

Sick.

That blog is worse than Reuters. Good Lord, people read that crap?

I'm going to go ahead and agree with Newt Gingrich:

Yup. America has been exposed.



Nero fiddled as Rome burned...

I was going to make a thread about a question I had, but I think this would be a good place to ask it...

I haven't been following the news very closely, just seeing that there's still an emergency, people are still stuck there, and there's still looting and crazy stuff going on. I've talked to many people here in my city, and everyone seems to have the same concerns that Newt Gingrich brought up.

How come it's taking so long to restore order to New Orleans and get everyone out? Are the troops or whoever scared of the loose gunmen? Is the war somehow stopping help from getting in? How are wars fought when it's taking so long to help those in New Orleans? I don't mean it to sound as bashing, it just doesn't make sense to at least the people I've talked to... can anyone explain it to me?

That's a beautiful poem, Bryan...

Thanks.

Anybody who believed we're actually prepared to deal with a terrorist attack on the scale of Katrina was a damned fool. Being better prepared than we were 5 years ago is a lot different than actually being prepared.


I don't believe anyone (that's talking publically) actually knows the answer to that. But there's no shortage of people who have opinions or theories. Short of a major smoking gun in a very key position emerging from the rubble with documentation, I don't believe there's much that we'll know for quite a long time, whenever the various "special commissions/boards of inquiry/etc" get finished with their work.


Now that's one worry I don't believe is remotely valid, at least not where the troops are concerned. To a man, they've struck me as landing in a very kick-ass-and-take-names-later state of mind.

I do think the routing of the 80+ police/N.Guard was a major blow to morale of the first contingent in the area & probably played a key role in getting them the sort of help (both manpower & leadership) that they badly needed.

Glad you like it. Thanks for the kindness.

For those wondering why things seem so jumbled. Well, part of the reason may be due to who GWB put in charge of FEMA, Michael Brown.

He spent the 1990s as judges and stewards commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to ensure that horse-show judges followed the rules.

Brown’s ticket to FEMA was Joe Allbaugh, President Bush’s 2000 campaign manager and a longtime friend of Brown’s in Oklahoma.

Brown told several association officials that if Bush were elected, he would be in line for a good job. When Allbaugh, who managed Bush’s campaign, took over FEMA in 2001, he took Brown with him as general counsel.

Dang it - I knew this hurricane was Bush's fault!

''Wouldn't have happened if Kerry was president.'' ;)

Not commenting on the original post but it didn't say the hurricane was Bush's fault but that the poor handling of the aftermath was.

This is a difficult one because the accusation really isn't about political views here but about cronyism which is politically a universal belief.

So, it could be right that this is the reason and that would of course deserve criticism but making it a left versus a right thing would be stupid though probably inevitable in these contentious times.

Since Bush can't possibly run for president again and this issue has no other legs than personal ones the best thing to remember from this is that if it proves true don't ever elect Michael Brown or his friends to any important public offices.

:D

The problem comes back to the system. The bureaucracy, number of "heads" involved, tie-ins needed between the states and feds, and overall red tape needed to get this type of funding makes any kind of overnight or even 2-3 day large scale response not feasible.

The only way to improve this response is to put this type of disaster recovery under the military with one person having the ability to write almost blank checks and deploy state and federal national guard units. This way if you have some governer looking like a chicken with her head cut off and the head of FEMA counting Arabian horses, it really doesn't matter. Think of it like a special investigations unitl of the FBI compared to a local sheriff. These type of decisions are too important to leave for random governers, local officials and appointed stiffs.

So, even if Rudy Guliani and Bernie Kerik were in charge of New Orleans, things would have been difficult in that they still would have been reliant on approval from the governer (buffoon), FEMA (buffoon), the senate (makes a snail look like grease lightning) and about 10 other national agenices in order to get the support they needed.

You could have had the reincarnation of JFK's resiliancy, Clinton's compassion and Reagan's bravado as president and he would still be a slave to the governor, congress and FEMA. No thanks, setup a new post under the military, give him carte-blanch authority to handle these situations and maybe next time it will be different. Acting as if a different president, head of FEMA or governer would have made a big difference is a fool's errand. While it may make us feel better in the interim, replacing one of these individual people would have done very little to prevent this clusterf*ck. The entire recipe needs to change, no just one ingredient.

Why would anyone think things would have gone better if the head of the disaster management agency had some disaster management experience and wasn't just some schmuck who got fired from his horse show job? It's an almost ludicrous idea!

How would you suggest that head get funding and access to the state and federal national guard without all the red tape? After all, a great head would have been able to avoid that, right? He could have risen above the laws governing his actions and made things happen. :rolleyes:

Still, I will not dispute the fact that this guy was a baffoon. My point is simply that the bureaucracy and numbers of people involved prevents a quick response - regardless of the head of FEMA. Thinking that a new head would make everything better is the easy way out - not the right way.

You're right Arles, we could have a chimp in that position and he'd do the same job since he's hamstring by all the red tape :rolleyes:

No, blaming everything on red tape is the easy way out.

Do you honestly believe a different head of FEMA could have made a massive difference in the relief effort? Again, the governor and Bush were both slow to respond. The mayor did a piss poor job of city planning when he was notified as well. A different head of FEMA might have helped, but it's akin to putting a better steak sauce on a burnt steak. While it may help a little, it will still taste like crap.

This whole process of dealing with large-scale disasters needs to change for the results to improve.

What red tape, Arles? The feds already have the authority to take over all operations at a moments notice in a disaster. There is no red tape.

A different head of FEMA would have made A difference. When you are talking about saving lives, any difference is a BIG difference. Maybe having someone with actual disaster management ability might have made a difference, but according to you Jesus, Buddah and Mohammad combined into a single entity would have had the same impact as the joker in there now...

You can try and lay all the blame on red tape if you want, I mean, that way noone is accoutable right?

You are correct, the odds are in favor of either one of those two appointing someone more qualified than who Bush did.

Read what I wrote above. What I am saying is that a different governor, FEMA or president may have made a slight difference - but the real reason for the struggles involves the system we have in place.

I guess I'd rather try and solve the problem instead of simply blame someone, pat myself on the back and call it day. Replacing the FEMA guy might have helped a bit, as would a different governor. In the end, though, the system is the problem and until that gets fixed we will run into the same problems.

no "well he didn't get blown in office" reply?

when all else fails, divert attention to the other side right?

I figured I better post something before the standard "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up. :)

Agreed. Despite their funny poses in your picture, they would have likely done a better job.

What about funding? Any red tape for that? What about the state national guard - the feds can take that from the governor? I also suppose the FEMA head can also deploy the federal national guard on his own as well.

All this is true, right?

Bush appointed a complete moron to the head of FEMA because he was a buddy of a buddy, who had zero experience. Anybody with a remote fucking clue about a disaster would have done a better job.

All this is true, right?

Yes.

Yes.

I want to appear balanced so I'm supporting both sides. :D

So would this be the right place for the...

"Good thing we spent all those billions on a manhunt that has turned up jack squat and a pointless war we're still stcuk in with no way out"

? :)

"I'm sending aid to Louisiana, and I'm sending aid to Mississippi, and I'm sending aid to Florida, and to Alabama, and to West Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin and I'm sending aid to Michigan. Yeeeeeeaaahhhhhh!!!!"

Basically, just like Kevin Costner in the movie.

Jim, do we really want to get into the "bad quote game"?

The bungling of this does more to inspire would-be terrorists than protesting the war does, IMO. Now they know, for sure, that our government will be chasing its tail for a week when faced with a major disaster. We can't handle the aftermath of a storm that we knew everything about before it made landfall.

So anyone bitching about the lack of response is helping the terrorists? :rolleyes: ;)

According to the National Response Plan:

The President has the authority to take over disaster reflief operations. If the governor was doing as bad a job as the administration now says they were doing, why didn't the feds take it over? The governor, however, asked for help the Friday before the Hurricane. NM offered NG units on Sunday, which were not approved by the feds until Thursday.

But let's just assume that your 'red tape' theory is correct. Either way it is a massive failure of the federal government, either by dragging their heals or having stupid procedures in place in a time of emergency. I can't see any reason why it should, in an emergency, take more than a few hours, a day at the most, to approve the National Guard being sent from NM to LA. Being that LA declared a state of emergency the Friday before the hurricane, and they spent all day Sunday on the news talking about the possibility of NOLA flooding, I don't see why emergency relief operations could not be put into place before the hurricane. Furthermore, the incompetance of Chertoff and Brown after the incident is just apalling. They learned a day after everyone else that people were at the convention center. Dropping supplies from the air never seemed to occur to them. With all this evidence, how can all the blame be placed on 'red tape'?

EDIT: From conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan:

Everything is relative. Any logical terrorist from the Middle East would have to be stunned that a country suffered a major natural disaster and said country provided it's own relief and aid and did so within the week.

Now, can a logical terrorist be spun to believe it's an advantage to their cause? Absolutely.

NorthCom (commander of troops in the US) Lt. Commander Sean Kelly, according to the BBC:
Just more red tape, I guess.

EDIT:
More red tape:

Thanks, that was the funniest response I've read in a while.

*wipes tears from eyes*

You're right, Mr. Biggs, if Kerry was there instead of Bush, New Orleans would currently be a thriving metropolis. Listen, Bush made mistakes, as did FEMA and the governer and the mayor and the other 10 government institutions initially counted on for help. My point is that we should have someone with absolute power in these situations who's sole focus is disaster recovery.

The president has to get briefed by no fewer than a dozen entities before he can make an informed decision - in addition to whatever else he is currently involved with. There should be someone that Bush can call and say "do what you have to to recover" and have it happen without 10 different entities being personally notified by the president.

And, until that happens, we will be no better off in recovering from these horrible trajedies.

Seriously, the Bush-haters would find fault regardless of what the administration did. If Bush had taken control from day one, then the Bush-haters would now be bashing him for turning the tragedy into a political football or photo-op.

Seriously, I think there is plenty of blame to be spread around, from the mayor of New Orleans, the deer-in-the-headlights governor of the state, FEMA, and yes the administration.

No no no, we should just have 1 person with absolute power in all situations.

You're being a dope. He never said that NO would be a friggin "thriving metrololis", he said Kerry would have had a more competant person at the head of FEMA which is of course true and having ANYONE who was more competant at the head of FEMA would have done a better job in this clusterfuck.

and the Bush apologists will continue to blame everything on "red tape" or try to divert attention from the actual facts.

I don't think Bush was the sole cause of this mess (the lack of help) but he certainly made things worse by a) putting a boob at the head of FEMA and b) taking his sweetass time giving the ok for help

The point I was trying to make was that even these guys....




would have likely done a better job.

Glad I could, uh, give you a chuckle, I guess.

They definitely would have done better than the two guys in the other pic.

I'll just leave ya'll to argue & spin the various bits of stuff in this.

Poll: Bush Not Taking Brunt of Katrina Criticism
http://abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKa...1094262&page=1

I'm sorry, what comes around goes around, but....

"Did somebody say, "Expert in the field of disaster preparedness?"

:)

I agree with the majority in the poll. I don't think Bush is personally at fault. I stated this way back when in that locked thread. I think it's really hard to honestly say that the president himself could have/would have made a significant difference in the result of the relief efforts. That said, the response of and efforts of the administration, as a whole, has been poor. But it certainly goes beyond just the administration. This has been a series of failures upon failures at all levels, local, state, and federal.