Head of FEMA was fired from his last job (organizing horse shows) [Archive]

Lemur

09-03-2005, 16:52

A little digging has turned up some amazing dirt. The current head of FEMA, the astonishing Michael Brown, was fired from his previous job organizing horse shows. (http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=100857) I'm not making this up; I only wish I were.

From the article:

The federal official in charge of the bungled New Orleans rescue was fired from his last private-sector job overseeing horse shows.

And before joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a deputy director in 2001, GOP activist Mike Brown had no significant experience that would have qualified him for the position.

The Oklahoman got the job through an old college friend who at the time was heading up FEMA.

The agency, run by Brown since 2003, is now at the center of a growing fury over the handling of the New Orleans disaster.
And then there's this:

Brown was forced out of the position after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures.

"He was asked to resign,'' Bill Pennington, president of the IAHA at the time, confirmed last night.

Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh, the previous head of FEMA until he quit in 2003 to work for the president's re-election campaign.

The implication would seem to be that a man who is incompetent to arrange horse shows will prove himself worthy in the most important disaster-response agency in the United States. Very interesting. Will he be awarded the Medal of Freedom? Or will our President finally nerve himself to get rid of an incompetent?

Care to place any bets?

Strike For The South

09-03-2005, 17:02

I think im gonna cry :wall:

Red Harvest

09-03-2005, 17:25

OH MY GOD!!!

Who in the hell ever thought someone like this should run FEMA? Surely this can't be true, I'm really wondering if this could be accurate because it seems incomprehensible. I'm so mad I can't even begin to express my outrage. Assuming this turns out to be true, the president and his administration must answer for this stupidity. I've had it with the excuses.

Aenlic

09-03-2005, 18:05

It's accurate. Brown is an estate lawyer, and a Republican activist and fund raiser. His appointment was purely a political payback, after his predecessor quit to go reap the war profits of the lucrative contract business in Iraq. ~D

This isn't the first time he's been under fire for mismanaging hurricane relief. Look back for articles in Sun-Sentinel in newspaper in Florida from back in January of this year, when Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida urged Bush to fire Brown for nearly $30 million in bogus payments to people in Miami for "damage" from hurricane Francis even though Miami was 100 miles away from Francis. FEMA finally admitted to only $12 million in overpayments, but refused to acknowledge that Miami was not a disaster area from Francis, claiming that the NOAA weather maps as proof. The NOAA then refuted the weather maps that FEMA claimed to have obtained from them.

BDC

09-03-2005, 18:19

Someone high up should be fired for this. It's one thing to let your friends make some money on the side, another to let them be in charge of the agency designed to protect millions of people.

Fabolous

09-03-2005, 18:56

These are the stories that make you love politics. Aren't they?

sharrukin

09-03-2005, 19:16

Strike For The South

09-03-2005, 19:17

someone needs to get hit

Red Harvest

09-03-2005, 19:20

Someone high up should be fired for this. It's one thing to let your friends make some money on the side, another to let them be in charge of the agency designed to protect millions of people.

Yeah...Dubya. That's who would have selected him. This isn't some unimportant little agency, especially after 9/11. There is simply no excuse for a mistake of this magnitude. No more excuses for this incompetence.

Why aren't the major news agencies reporting this yet? Why hasn't Fox broken the story...oh, I forgot, they are in "circle the wagons" mode. Watched the "Stop the Blame Game" commentary this morning on Fox. They are still trying to blame this on the city. We still have tens of thousands of people stranded in the city and still many needing aid or outright rescue, and Fox still doesn't get it. "America's Challenge" they label it. I'm tired of their cutesy crap, their ALL SPIN ZONE. I want heads!

When we get these folks evacuated, fed, rehydrated, and in shelter, heads need to start rolling, starting at the top. These agencies need to be rebuilt, without amateurs and political appointees. This job needs to be done right. This is the biggest fiasco I've ever witnessed by the Federal govt. ~:angry: :furious2:

Redleg

09-03-2005, 19:23

Apparently FEMA has been a favoured dumping ground for political appointees for some time. It seems to cut across political lines as both parties engage in it.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0197f.asp

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.franklin.html

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/FEMA4.html

Yes indeed - FEMA has been one of the most abused government agencies with political appoints for rewards. Hopefully one of the things coming out of this diaster is that FEMA gets a shake up and fixed. The Homeland Security gets a major slap in the head and a bunch of people fired for not doing thier jobs in providing adequate and timely response at the National Level.

And this knuckle head not only needs to be fired - he needs to be bumped down to simple clean-up worker and sent to New Orleans to help clean up.

sharrukin

09-03-2005, 19:38

And this knuckle head not only needs to be fired - he needs to be bumped down to simple clean-up worker and sent to New Orleans to help clean up.

This may sound harsh but I would put him on with the crews removing bodies so he gets some idea what his bungling has cost.

Red Harvest

09-03-2005, 19:54

This may sound harsh but I would put him on with the crews removing bodies so he gets some idea what his bungling has cost.

Agreed.

Why would someone accept that sort of job without the qualifications to fulfill it?

Lemur

09-03-2005, 20:26

PanzerJaeger

09-03-2005, 20:44

Yeah...Dubya. That's who would have selected him. This isn't some unimportant little agency, especially after 9/11. There is simply no excuse for a mistake of this magnitude. No more excuses for this incompetence.

The article does not back up your biased assertion. Sorry.

Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh, the previous head of FEMA until he quit in 2003 to work for the president's re-election campaign.

Who would be better qualified to pick the next head of FEMA but the previous head. Thats usually how these things work, the people who run the agencies recommend replacements.

But dont let that stop you from demanding Bush's head, nothing else ever has. ~:rolleyes:

Red Harvest

09-03-2005, 20:49

It appears that anyone who bet on a medal rather than a firing will win the prize. Our president is giving the failed horse-show organizer his full support: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aS9EbI4g0lVw&refer=us)

Federal officials yesterday defended the government's actions, and Bush, Barbour and Alabama Governor Bob Riley today in turn singled out FEMA director Mike Brown for praise.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job,'' Bush said.

Yep, this has been a GOP self love fest. Blast the democratic officials, praise the GOP. DISGUSTING!!!

And of course, let's not mention that many Mississippians are also without help yet, while we are all patting ourselves on the back with a veritable "Mission Accomplished" sign for Mississippi. FEMA is setting up stations, but people can't reach them because their transport is gone. They are relying on *individuals* to ferry them supplies.

Red Harvest

09-03-2005, 20:57

The article does not back up your biased assertion. Sorry.

Who would be better qualified to pick the next head of FEMA but the previous head.

My 3 year old perhaps? He could certainly do a better job.

Thats usually how these things work, the people who run the agencies recommend replacements.

Seems to me that the Prez has to sign off on this. I don't think there is any chance that a Democratic fundraiser would have been allowed to stand.

Are you saying Dubya is unable to properly screen candidates for these high posts? I'm sure there was no need for this in light of 9/11 and our push for improved security and threat response. ~:rolleyes:

But dont let that stop you from demanding Bush's head, nothing else ever has. ~:rolleyes:

I have always loathed incompetence. Worst president in recent memory = worst disaster response ever. No surprise there.

Strike For The South

09-03-2005, 21:03

ichi

09-03-2005, 21:04

We tend to think that hard work and intelligence, responsibility and ethics will allow people to rise through the system to a position of authority.

But under the Bush admin the idea of 'meritocracy', where individuals work their way to the top, is totally avoided. See, Bush was a C student who succeeded in life through connections, never by his own hard work. And he and most of the top leadership in the Republican party value loyalty over everything.

So you get guys like this running a lot of the important parts of government.

The sad thing is, there was a guy, who worked hard and long, who would have done a good job at FEMA, who was passed over so some party loyalist could get his ol buddy a job.

ichi :bow:

Lemur

09-03-2005, 21:14

Apparently FEMA has been a favoured dumping ground for political appointees for some time. It seems to cut across political lines as both parties engage in it.
Far be it from this lemur to deny that both parties have dumped their cronies in FEMA, but there was a marked and deliberate difference in how FEMA was organized and directed between the nineties and the 00's. A little background on FEMA's evolution: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/national/nationalspecial/03fema.html)

FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 after criticism of the government's fragmented response to a series of disasters, including Hurricane Camille in 1969 and California earthquakes in 1971.

Hurricane Andrew, which struck South Florida in 1992, demonstrated that the federal government still had not sufficiently figured out how to respond smoothly, as thousands were initially left without shelter or water. The agency had a reputation for political patronage and pork barrel spending.

It was with the appointment in 1993 of James Lee Witt, from Arkansas, that the agency began to earn respect.

Mr. Clinton made FEMA a cabinet-level agency.

"Witt shaped it into an organization that was not only to respond to disaster but attempt to mitigate disaster by taking actions before they occurred," said Michael Greenberger, a domestic security expert at the University of Maryland and a former Justice Department official.

After severe flooding in the Midwest in 1993, FEMA under Mr. Witt, for example, bought more than 10,000 properties adjacent to rivers and relocated residents and businesses. In Grafton, Ill., where 403 residents and businesses applied for disaster aid after the 1993 flood, only 11 applied when the river overflowed again in 1995, FEMA said at the time.

The approach to disaster management changed with the arrival of President Bush, experts in emergency management say. Mr. Bush appointed Mr. Allbaugh, who was Mr. Bush's chief of staff when he was governor of Texas.

Testifying before Congress in 2001, Mr. Allbaugh said he was concerned that federal disaster assistance had become "an oversized entitlement program" and made it clear that the new administration wanted to curtail FEMA's mission.

His goal, he said, was to "restore the predominant role of state and local response to most disasters."

While Mr. Allbaugh was FEMA director, the Bush administration, with the backing of Congress, reversed the emphasis on preventing flooding, cutting the formula for such federal grants by half.

"It just does not make good sense," said Larry A. Larson, director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Aenlic

09-03-2005, 21:20

From the FEMA website (http://www.fema.gov/about/bios/brown.shtm):

Michael D. Brown was nominated by President George W. Bush as the first Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response in the newly created Department of Homeland Security in January 2003. As the head of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Under Secretary Brown leads federal disaster response and recovery operations and coordinates disaster activities with more than two dozen federal agencies and departments and the American Red Cross. He also oversees the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration, and initiates proactive mitigation activities.

[sarcasm on]Yep. Not Bush's problem at all. He didn't appoint this goober to be head of FEMA, did he? Despite the evidence. Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along. [/sarcasm off]

The head of FEMA isn't picked by the previous head, who was Joe Allbaugh. Allbaugh brought this little wonderboy along when Bush appointed him. Brown was Allbaugh's roommate in college. Old good buddies (remember the phrase? ~D ). Did Allbaugh appoint Brown to be his successor? No. He was put into FEMA by Allbaugh; but BUSH appointed Brown to head FEMA. No one else.

By the way, what was Joe Allbaugh's qualification to be head of FEMA? He was Bush's chief of staf as governor of Taxes, then he was National Campaign Manager for Bush-Cheney 2000. Allbaugh had no previous experience in disaster relief either. Purely political appointment. His education? Bachelor of Arts in Political Science (snicker) from Oklahoma State. No wonder he didn't know any better when he brought his college buddy along for the ride. When Allbaugh left to go make some tidy little war profits running a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do business in Iraq, Brown was then appointed to head FEMA by Bush. Any other questions?

PanzerJaeger

09-03-2005, 21:26

Gawain of Orkeny

09-03-2005, 21:28

But under the Bush admin the idea of 'meritocracy', where individuals work their way to the top, is totally avoided.

Oh please. Would you like to compare Bush's cabinet to Clintons? Talk about a bunch of losers. Bush is no different in this regard than most presidents.

Husar

09-03-2005, 22:11

I have yet to see anyone actually state what the federal government has done wrong in this. It seems they attempted to respect the local and state governments, as would be expected, and then took over when they failed. That is the what the role of the federal government should be.

Yes, the best thing they could ever do was to respect the failing attempts of the state governments until it was completely clear that they couldn´t help. :dizzy2:

It was just as good as the decision to take away the money that was meant to reinforce the dams in New Orleans and use it for more useful tasks like wars....... :furious3:

I find it funny in some way to hear that Bush invaded Iraq to make the USA more secure while taking away money for dams. Now what was the bigger threat? the non-existant WMDs in Iraq or the non-existant dams in NO?
I know that dams wouldn´t have saved everybody and every town, but they would at least have kept the water out of NO.

Lemur

09-03-2005, 22:24

More fun with Michael Brown:

FEMA chief Brown: "We learned about that (Thursday), so I have directed that we have all available resources to get that convention center to make sure that they have the food and water and medical care that they need." [Sept. 1, 2005]

Brown: "Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well." [Sept. 1, 2005]

Brown: "I've had no reports of unrest, if the connotation of the word unrest means that people are beginning to riot, or you know, they're banging on walls and screaming and hollering or burning tires or whatever. I've had no reports of that." [Sept. 1, 2005]

Brown: "I actually think the security is pretty darn good. There's some really bad people out there that are causing some problems, and it seems to me that every time a bad person wants to scream of cause a problem, there's somebody there with a camera to stick it in their face." [Sept. 1, 2005]

President George Bush: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." [Sept. 2, 2005]

Spetulhu

09-03-2005, 22:32

This is how political parties work in just about every country that has them. The guy who patted you on the back gets a reward. Often it's just a seat on the board of some big company where you can lift hefty pay for voting exactly like the director. You don't do any harm there, but you are a parasite all the same.

Lemur

09-03-2005, 22:33

Also, as long as we're discussing whether blame is being pointed in the right direction, here's some info from the Homeland Security web site: (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home2.jsp)

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort.
If you would like to see how effectively Mr. Brown's agency is discharging its duties, please note that the Red Cross was forbidden to bring aid to the people in NOLA. From the Red Cross: (http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html)

Acess to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.
This lemur dares anyone in their right minds to defend the decision to prevent the Red Cross from entering NOLA. Homeland Security and FEMA are in dereliction of duty. And don't even get me started on the no-bid decision to hand over the reconstruction of New Orleans to Halliburton ...

Red Harvest

09-03-2005, 22:38

Sigh.. If Bush hadnt accepted the man the previous head of FEMA recomended - the usual crowd would be screaming about that.

If people actually took more time to look at how a response to a hurricane is usually set up, the scale of the disaster, and what has actually been done, they wouldnt be so righteously indignant.

But of course many feel their anger at the situation must be quantified in the form of someone... anyone. Thats the culture in America, someone is always to blame! And to many, Bush is always at fault for everything, much like the Jews are always at fault in other circles.

I have yet to see anyone actually state what the federal government has done wrong in this. It seems they attempted to respect the local and state governments, as would be expected, and then took over when they failed. That is the what the role of the federal government should be.

No, PJ, the people that didn't realize the scale are in the Administration. They are the very people now being lambasted for their inept, insufficient, and incompetent response, by both sides of the isle. The people being blamed are those very ones who are responsible for handling this disaster. It is their job, and they failed miserably. Who do you want to blame, Osama, WMD's, Saddam? There are folks who have these positions, yet clearly cannot fulfill the requirements of them. Let 'em go pick up corpses.

The real disaster here is the class A cluster**** that has been the relief response. Am I going to give Louisiana officials a pass, heck no! That does not in any way excuse the power vacuum at the Federal level. Waiting for the locals to be swamped shows no common sense. That might be the sort of leadership you've come to expect, but I won't stand for it. I don't care if it's Bush, Clinton, Snoop Doggy Dog, or Mickey Mouse in the White House, this is not acceptable. I want heads on pikes. I want examples made and most importantly: I don't ever want to see a Federal response to a major disaster this badly mishandled again, EVER. Cover this up like previous leadership failures of this Administration, and you will see the same thing happen again.

There are multitudes of reports both on TV and on the web showing what was wrong. They are blaming slow Federal response as well. If you can't see it or hear it, then it is because you aren't listening. The people on the ground in New Orleans (victims, officials, doctors, nurses, police, reporters, etc.) have ALL been asking where the help is. For days the only real aid was coming from the Coast Guard.

Red Harvest

09-03-2005, 22:42

Lemur

09-03-2005, 22:55

I've heard all those too. You gotta wonder what sort of hallucinogens the clown is on.
Horse tranquilizers would be my guess, based on his prior experience.

Lemur

09-03-2005, 22:57

Oh please. Would you like to compare Bush's cabinet to Clintons? Talk about a bunch of losers. Bush is no different in this regard than most presidents.
Gawain, I think all of us would like to hear how James Lee Witt (Clinton's head of FEMA) was a "loser." Please elaborate.

BTW, has the defense of this admin.'s handling of the NOLA disaster really descended to "everybody hires incompetents, so what's the big deal"?

Steppe Merc

09-03-2005, 23:07

Oh please. Would you like to compare Bush's cabinet to Clintons? Talk about a bunch of losers. Bush is no different in this regard than most presidents.
Probably. But he still should be punished. Everyone else is doing it shouldn't cut it. If everyone else is doing it, punish them as they do stupid things. But it has to start somewhere. Next Democrat appoints a friend and he screws up, I'll support the Democrat's getting in trouble. But now Bush is in charge, and he appointed a moron.

And I'm gonna sound like an ass, but what is FEMA? Obviously it's an Emergency something or other, but what does it do exactly? Or what should it be doing?

Oh, and how hard is it to run a horse race? Horses are nice, they aren't mean. You feed them, and their happy. Doesn't sound particularly challenging.

sharrukin

09-03-2005, 23:15

And I'm gonna sound like an ass, but what is FEMA? Obviously it's an Emergency something or other, but what does it do exactly? Or what should it be doing?

Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) Agency of the US government tasked with Disaster relief, Preparedness, Response and Recovery planning. The scope of FEMA's work includes everything from floods to earthquakes to the transport of hazardous substances.

Steppe Merc

09-03-2005, 23:17

Thanks. I figured it was something like that, but I wasn't sure.

Red Harvest

09-03-2005, 23:34

Oh please. Would you like to compare Bush's cabinet to Clintons? Talk about a bunch of losers. Bush is no different in this regard than most presidents.

I really don't see how Clinton has anything to do with this disaster, ~:rolleyes: but I think his admin would stack up favorably compared with Dubya's. I wasn't thrilled with some of Clinton's appointments. I haven't seen Dubya's perform better, and in notable cases I've seen them perform far worse.

Lemur

09-03-2005, 23:41

Oh, and how hard is it to run a horse race?
Races might be fun, but Mr. Brown was in charge of horse shows. Think of the Westminster Kennel Club show, that sort of thing. Not nearly so hard as organizing a race. We're talking about as un-taxing of an administrative job as anyone could have. And he was fired for incompetence.

Do any of our illustrious Conservative Club brethren believe that anyone should be held responsible for this debacle? Besides Clinton, of course. We all know that Clinton is to blame for anything that happens between now and 2050, that's just a given.

Come on, conservatives. I thought personal responsibility was supposed to be one of your values. Just this once, let's see someone in Washington take the heat they deserve. Just this once.

Steppe Merc

09-03-2005, 23:42

Damn. A horse show? That's nothing. You just let all those horse people walk around on their horses. I've been to them, they aren't particullary difficult looking to manage.

PanzerJaeger

09-04-2005, 01:44

No, PJ, the people that didn't realize the scale are in the Administration. They are the very people now being lambasted for their inept, insufficient, and incompetent response, by both sides of the isle. The people being blamed are those very ones who are responsible for handling this disaster. It is their job, and they failed miserably. Who do you want to blame, Osama, WMD's, Saddam? There are folks who have these positions, yet clearly cannot fulfill the requirements of them. Let 'em go pick up corpses.

The real disaster here is the class A cluster**** that has been the relief response. Am I going to give Louisiana officials a pass, heck no! That does not in any way excuse the power vacuum at the Federal level. Waiting for the locals to be swamped shows no common sense. That might be the sort of leadership you've come to expect, but I won't stand for it. I don't care if it's Bush, Clinton, Snoop Doggy Dog, or Mickey Mouse in the White House, this is not acceptable. I want heads on pikes. I want examples made and most importantly: I don't ever want to see a Federal response to a major disaster this badly mishandled again, EVER. Cover this up like previous leadership failures of this Administration, and you will see the same thing happen again.

There are multitudes of reports both on TV and on the web showing what was wrong. They are blaming slow Federal response as well. If you can't see it or hear it, then it is because you aren't listening. The people on the ground in New Orleans (victims, officials, doctors, nurses, police, reporters, etc.) have ALL been asking where the help is. For days the only real aid was coming from the Coast Guard.

What is the mishandling Red? I dont see it. I see people doing the best they can to save people in a huge disaster area.

Youre acting as if tens of thousands of people in tens of thousands of flooded houses could have been evacuated in a matter of minutes, yet Bush just decided not to. Youre acting as if this has all been done before, but Bush somehow did it wrong. You seem to have some sort of crystal ball that tells you when things should have been done that were not. None of us can put a timescale on such a huge response.

It takes some time to organize a relief effort this huge. I dont know if you realize the scale of what is having to be done.

You have done nothing but complain about Bush and the federal government, who have been the only ones to do anything right!

It was the local authorities who didnt force people to leave. It was the local authorities that told people to go into a superdome that couldnt sustain them. The feds have done nothing but fix messes this entire week.

As Ive said before, the hurricane response system has always been based on the federal aiding the local. This time they had to assume all control. All of this takes time. Maybe putting such emphasis on the separation of powers and such is not a good idea, but its been that way since long before the Bush Admin took over.

Now of course you want someone to blame, and for you the big boogeyman has always been Bush, but you just arent focusing your justified rage in the right place. This is a natural disaster, and everyone is doing the best they can to fix a bad situation. Must we always play the blame game everytime something bad happens instead of focusing on fixing it?

PanzerJaeger

09-04-2005, 01:54

Do any of our illustrious Conservative Club brethren believe that anyone should be held responsible for this debacle?

This was a natural disaster Lemur. I know people feel they must blame someone, theres so much rage out there for what has been done to people, but these things just happen sometimes.

Bush, of course, is the cause of all the worlds problems in some people's minds, but he cannot control the weather. Were all mad about what happened, but although blaming Bush might make you feel better, it wont make those people in NO feel better. :shrug:

Ronin

09-04-2005, 02:04

This was a natural disaster Lemur. I know people feel they must blame someone, theres so much rage out there for what has been done to people, but these things just happen sometimes.

Bush, of course, is the cause of all the worlds problems in some people's minds, but he cannot control the weather. Were all mad about what happened, but although blaming Bush might make you feel better, it wont make those people in NO feel better. :shrug:

aid was faster to get to the areas that the tsunami hit in december than to get to a town in your own country....

you think that is normal?....you think that the people responsible for the organization of the situation aren´t responsible for that?

and if you think it´s normal...hey...fine with me....it´s not like it´s my country or anything.....you on the other hand might want to think about it.

PanzerJaeger

09-04-2005, 02:09

aid was faster to get to the areas that the tsunami hit in december than to get to a town in your own country....

you think that is normal?....

I cannot answer a question based on a false assertion.

It would be like me saying "Well we all know you're stupid, but can you do algebra?"

Reconsider your facts and the time table for the Tsunami relief. It was months before some areas were even reached by the outside world.

Steppe Merc

09-04-2005, 02:34

PJ, the fact that Bush put a moron who can't run a horse show in charge of such an important post needs to be adressed. Sure Bush didn't cause the tornadoe, but he appointed an nincompoop, and isn't doing anything about it. That's wrong, IMO.

Ronin

09-04-2005, 02:35

I cannot answer a question based on a false assertion.

It would be like me saying "Well we all know you're stupid, but can you do algebra?"

Reconsider your facts and the time table for the Tsunami relief. It was months before some areas were even reached by the outside world.

yes....some areas were not reached for weeks i believe(not months)....but major population centers that were hit got shipments of international help in the 24/48 following hours to the incident(and these were isolated areas on the other side of the world from were the majority of aid was comming from....it wasn´t the next state over like in New Orleans)........so the question stands....do you think the time taken in New orleans is normal?...and is no one responsible?

Slyspy

09-04-2005, 02:48

Ronin you are completely wrong about that. Even moths after the tsunami some areas had not seen a hint of aid. Then again of course there was no central authority to direct the aid nor transport and infratructure to shift it.

I would suggest that the appointment of political buddies to run emergency agencies despite their poor previous performance is short-sighted at best. Cronyism is an unfortunate trend in politicians.

PanzerJaeger

09-04-2005, 02:56

yes....some areas were not reached for weeks i believe(not months)....but major population centers that were hit got shipments of international help in the 24/48 following hours to the incident(and these were isolated areas on the other side of the world from were the majority of aid was comming from....it wasn´t the next state over like in New Orleans)........so the question stands....do you think the time taken in New orleans is normal?...and is no one responsible?

That simply isnt true.

If you want to say that the relief response was not what it could have been, then go ahead - you'll have plenty of company. However, dont just make things up to make the administration look bad.

Lemur

09-04-2005, 03:27

PanzerJaeger

09-04-2005, 04:00

PJ, are you asserting that the aid and rescue efforts following the natural disaster were adequate? Appropriate to a first-world nation?

Hell yes I am.

More than three major metropolitan statistical areas(one of them being under the major designation) and several other smaller urban areas were destroyed and then submerged in permanent water in an area that is bigger than Britain. This is unprecidented.

Do you realize how hard it is to get aid to a populace that is spread out in an area that big? Do you know how many buildings that area contains? The task is almost unfathomable.

A week out - Id say we are doing pretty well. Mistakes have been made, but hardly on the scale of a "debacle", and most of them were made on a local level.

Now nobody likes to see Geroldo Rivera on a bridge with a crying baby, but youve got to have at least a little perspective. It doesnt matter how a country stacks up on the 1st through 3rd world ratings, a disaster this big takes time to respond to.

Lemur

09-04-2005, 04:25

More than three major metropolitan statistical areas(one of them being under the major designation) and several other smaller urban areas were destroyed and then submerged in permanent water in an area that is bigger than Britain.
Last I heard, the "larger than Great Britain" thing was a stretch. The areas that were submerged don't even come close to equaling Wales, much less the U.K. It's a quibble, but it needs to be said.

Do you realize how hard it is to get aid to a populace that is spread out in an area that big? Do you know how many buildings that area contains? The task is almost unfathomable.
So your assertion seems to be that since there are victims spread out all over the Gulf Coast, it's understandable that tens of thousands of people were left without food, water, security or sanitation for upwards of four days? Even though any fool turning on the news could see what was happening? It's acceptable that the head of FEMA discounted all news reports and declared that until he had official statements, there was little he could do? This seems to gloss over the response problem.

A week out - Id say we are doing pretty well. Mistakes have been made, but hardly on the scale of a "debacle", and most of them were made on a local level.
Nobody is disputing the local screw-ups. The mayor should have used those 250+ buses, agreed. The state's reaction was pathetic, agreed. What leaves this lemur scratching his head is the Federal response. Homeland Security is supposed to take charge of large disasters. It's in their charter. It's on their website. They're supposed to provide coordination and leadership. Instead there have been a series of inexplicable decisions, especially pertaining to the people in the dome and the convention center.

Some of those decisions are so ... outrageous, insane, counter to all rational thought, I can't think of a more polite way to put it, that I'm at a complete loss to even hypothesize how they were made. Why erect a barricade to prevent those healthy enough to attempt escape from NOLA? Why bar the Red Cross from entering the site to distribute food and water? Why could journalists enter and move through NOLA when the combined might of the Homeland Security Agency couldn't? Why did cops on the ground report that they hadn't heard a peep from FEMA by the end of day three?

All three levels of government screwed up, agreed. This was a known and likely danger, and everybody got caught with their pants down. But I find the Federal response mystifying, and shaming.

Now nobody likes to see Geroldo Rivera on a bridge with a crying baby, but youve got to have at least a little perspective.
To quote Shep Smith from the exact video clip you're referencing: (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hannity-Colmes-Smith-Rivera-freak-in-NO.wmv) "This is perspective! This is all the perspective you need!"

PanzerJaeger

09-04-2005, 04:57

Well the reaction time seems to be the main point of contention.

For the scale of the disaster, and the "spread out" nature of the populace they are trying to get relief to, I feel there has been no major incompetence.

Im not saying that the feds did things perfectly, or that the appointment of Brown was a positive, but the response can hardly be described as a "debacle" and calls for Bush's "head on a pike" are hardly helpful.

We'll have to agree to disagree, and wait a little while for the full facts to come to light. If it comes out that Bush heard about the lootings and said "Ahh, lets give it a few days to play itself out", then I will join the chorus. Somehow though, I feel everyone is doing the very best they can to fix this.

Red Harvest

09-04-2005, 05:49

What is the mishandling Red? I dont see it. I see people doing the best they can to save people in a huge disaster area.

Youre acting as if tens of thousands of people in tens of thousands of flooded houses could have been evacuated in a matter of minutes, yet Bush just decided not to. Youre acting as if this has all been done before, but Bush somehow did it wrong. You seem to have some sort of crystal ball that tells you when things should have been done that were not. None of us can put a timescale on such a huge response.

No, I'm not. Stabilizing the situation didn't require immediate evacuation, but it did require early effort NOT EMPTY GESTURES. I realize evacuation will take time. But it is ironic that you think 42,000 in 5 days is good with concerted effort of the nation, while perhaps 350,000 in about 24-36 hours by local authorities is not??? More importantly, unlike these so called Admin planners, I recognized that the most important things are establishing security and bringing in water. You can sustain things for awhile if you have those two things. Dehydration was and is a key enemy and should have been a primary concern WITHIN 48 hours. And without security, evacuation becomes impossible. Folks who have worked in similar situations elsewhere have been commenting on these aspects in the media. As they have said, as soon as a security, supply, evacuation presence arrived, things were stabilized.

The Homeland Security folks assumed a levee breech was not a big deal! Chertoff himself says they dismissed it. They ignored what the locals had been saying. Since when is overflowing a levee likely to result in an easily repaired breech? I've seen levies go on my own ponds when the flow exceeds the overflow capacity. It cut right through in a short time. I've seen the same in various floods.

It takes some time to organize a relief effort this huge. I dont know if you realize the scale of what is having to be done.
I seem to realize it far better than you, or at least better comprehend where the limits will be. You still seem to think locals could manage it for a week or so on their own, which is insane. It's like giving a gunshot victim a tourniquet and telling him to hang on for a week while we figure out how to move him. I also realize how little was done for nearly a week. Yes, I'm counting back to when the Federal/State/Local planning should have been kicking into high gear. Not post storm, and not 3 days later when the Feds finally started doing something tangible.

You have done nothing but complain about Bush and the federal government, who have been the only ones to do anything right!

And what would that be exactly? The Lt. Gen. on the ground finally got things rolling Thursday night. This needed to be a Fed operation from the start. Sitting around in Crawford/Oval office with your thumb up your butt for 5 days is hardly an acceptable performance if you are commander in chief.

It was the local authorities who didnt force people to leave. It was the local authorities that told people to go into a superdome that couldnt sustain them. The feds have done nothing but fix messes this entire week.

None of that is factually correct:
1. The evacuation was mandatory. There is only so much that the Police on the ground could do to enforce it in limited time.
2. The Superdome plan was the best that they could hope for short term, it was meant as a shelter from the wind and water awaiting OUTSIDE help. It served its purpose.
3. The Feds did not arrive in a timely fashion. The Superdome should have been emptied or at least supplied within 48 hours of landfall.

Must we always play the blame game everytime something bad happens instead of focusing on fixing it?
Must we always excuse the incompetence of Dubya? This event is the biggest presidential screw up I've ever seen. He's always got some sort of excuse for not getting anything right. Oops on 9/11...it was Clinton's fault. Oops about WMD's...it was an intelligence mistake. Oops on the budget...it was 9/11, recession, Iraq. Oops on Abu Ghraib...it was Lindy's fault. Oops on Iraq in general...we'll figure that one out later, blame it on Sheehan for now. Oops on oil/energy policy...it must be India/China's fault or those fools that think we should conserve. Oops on North Korea preparing to go nuclear...we were too engaged elsewhere. Oops on Osama getting away...we weren't ready to actually find him when we went into Afghanistan. Oops on Mullah Omar...ditto.

What does this guy have to do before folks remove the blinders and see him for what he really is?

Red Harvest

09-04-2005, 05:51

Now nobody likes to see Geroldo Rivera on a bridge with a crying baby

I don't like seeing Geraldo, period. ~D Why the heck is that clown still on the air?

Aenlic

09-04-2005, 05:55

Would you rather have him putting his hands in your food working as a preparer at the local fast food joint? I feel much safer with him doing something out in the open where we can keep an eye on him.

Red Harvest

09-04-2005, 06:01

Hell yes I am.

More than three major metropolitan statistical areas(one of them being under the major designation) and several other smaller urban areas were destroyed and then submerged in permanent water in an area that is bigger than Britain. This is unprecidented.

Do you realize how hard it is to get aid to a populace that is spread out in an area that big? Do you know how many buildings that area contains? The task is almost unfathomable.

A week out - Id say we are doing pretty well. Mistakes have been made, but hardly on the scale of a "debacle", and most of them were made on a local level.

There is no logic in what you have just said. You're saying it is massive and unprecedented, so the locals should have been able to handle it, but the Feds, with three times as many days should not? Forgive me if I can't follow that sort of excuse. You are saying we can't martial our forces as a nation to help one city even evacuate after a disaster? Not to mention there are still serious problems in Mississippi, etc.

After 9/11 this sort of nightmare scenario is EXACTLY what the Dept. of Homeland Security should have been preparing for. It is now clear that they have not and are not. That does not fulfill their mandate in the eyes of this nation.

I see ZERO indication that we are prepared for ANY regional, large metropolitan evacuation or disaster. None. That might be acceptable to someone, but it shows me an Administration asleep at the helm.

The truth is the President had the authority to get things done early on. He didn't act on it.

QwertyMIDX

09-04-2005, 06:22

In 2003 President Bush cut funding to SELA (Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project) which was an Army Corps of Engineers run project to repair and expand the New Orleans Leeves. In a side note the reason for cuts in funding to SELA (according to the ACE), the Iraq War, incresed funding for Homeland Security, and tax cuts.

Further, in early 2004 President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to this Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness:

The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes.

The Lake Pontchartrain project is slated to receive $3.9 million in the president's 2005 budget. Naomi said about $20 million is needed.

"The longer we wait without funding, the more we sink," he said. "I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about $5 million. And we're going to have to pay them interest."

FEMA also failed to bus out people who couldn't afford to leave New Orleans before Katrina hit, if you couldn't for pay your way out you had to stay in New Orleans in "refuges of last restort" like the Super Dome. Now that they are busing people out (mostly to Houston), after leaving them there in the face of one of worst disasters in US history, House Speaker Dennis Hastert's comment on the situation was "I hope we in Houston aren't busing in New Orleans' problems."

PanzerJaeger

09-04-2005, 06:31

Again, youre playing monday morning quarterback. Its easy to swagger around after the fact calling for heads to roll, but the people in charge were not blessed with power of hindsight.

The federal response has actually been quite good if you take emotion out of the equation. There were if fact supplies on the ground and rescues being conducted the day after the storm. You dont seem to be willing to face the fact that evacuating tens of thousands of people from tens of thousands of different locations takes time, no matter how fast one responds or how many resources one has. Mobilizing troops, organizing a response, and coordination in an area with no working utilities takes time.

I have yet to see any negligence on the part of the federal government. They are doing the best they can in a bad situation.

Red Harvest

09-04-2005, 07:00

Again, youre playing monday morning quarterback.
Nope, I was concerned about this two days before the storm hit.

Its easy to swagger around after the fact calling for heads to roll, but the people in charge were not blessed with power of hindsight.
Nor the power of foresight it would seem. Or perhaps even sight if you followed the disconnect from what they said they had done and what was actually happening.

The federal response has actually been quite good if you take emotion out of the equation.
Nope, I'm going by numbers. The fact that the Superdome couldn't even be emptied until today clearly says otherwise.

There were if fact supplies on the ground and rescues being conducted the day after the storm. You dont seem to be willing to face the fact that evacuating tens of thousands of people from tens of thousands of different locations takes time, no matter how fast one responds or how many resources one has.
But of course it is easy for locals to do it with 1/10th or 1/100th as many in their organizations, and several times as many folks to evacuate...right...

If there were supplies on the ground from the Feds, they were well hidden. Only the Coast Guard was in action, and they did do good work.

Mobilizing troops, organizing a response, and coordination in an area with no working utilities takes time.

Yes, time that was clearly wasted ahead of the storm and after it.

I have yet to see any negligence on the part of the federal government. They are doing the best they can in a bad situation.
I've seen little but negligence in their inaction in the first 3 days after the storm. While the General is there now, taking charge and getting things done as I expected, he wasn't sent in nearly soon enough, making a bad situation far worse than it should have been. Dubya and his appointees didn't seem to feel much urgency early on, and the response clearly shows it.

sharrukin

09-04-2005, 07:00

The Bush administration was too slow and poorly led in this disaster IMO, but the flood control situation is something both Republican and Democrats are responsible for.

This type of disaster was predicted for decades, and not just by the latest boob at FEMA. You cannot blame the present administration for what should have been done decades ago. Clinton, Bush, even Reagan :bigcry: share the blame.

The Department of Homeland Security clearly has not improved the security situation and that is not good news.

PanzerJaeger

09-04-2005, 07:37

Ok Red, I think we've both covered our respective points several times over. At any rate, it will be interesting to see what information comes to light in the weeks ahead.

Kongamato

09-04-2005, 07:42

Do you expect a commission to be formed to investigate the mistakes made here, like with the 9/11 commission?

KafirChobee

09-04-2005, 08:18

The article does not back up your biased assertion. Sorry.

Who would be better qualified to pick the next head of FEMA but the previous head. Thats usually how these things work, the people who run the agencies recommend replacements.

But dont let that stop you from demanding Bush's head, nothing else ever has. ~:rolleyes:
Sorry, stopped here at this statement. Nothing personal PJ, but Bush43 doesnot walk on water. Truth is this is the man that erased his NG files, and was rewarded for his loyalty by being given this position. It is not the first time Bush has rewarded incompetence, nor will it be his last.

Son, be fair to yourself and look beyond the desire to respect someone; versus forcing them to earn your respect. If Bush has truely earned yours - then maybe take the time to list why. Then, list why these things really were a positive thing for the nation (unless of course you are a multimillionaire - in which case get down on your knees before or behind him and kiss what ever). This guy is a fruitcake - he's no more a leader than Curley was (3 stooges - which pretty much sums up W, Rummy and Cheney).

Just because a name is labeled on to someone or an organization does not make it wrong - actions speak louder than words. Bush's actions speak very loudly that he is incompetent, unable to lead, and inable to understand that he is the leader of a nation and not an agenda.
PJ, you're a smart man for your age - for once think without your heart interfering - or, your prejudices. Bush is a loser, he's an image, he's a fubar, the magnum of all cluster f's.
[steps of soapbox] :bow:

KafirChobee

09-04-2005, 09:11

OK, read it all. My conclusion; some will always argue for a side out of the misguided ascertion that the other side is always wrong. Even if the other side has nothing to do with the arguement. [no pot and kettle crap, plz]

It is like argueing to a dog about why it chases its tail - it does it because it thinks that it is a threat; but, the dog answers, "because if I don't do it now, who will?". Maybe the dog knows something the rest of us don't? Or, maybe the dog just doesn't know - maybe, it doesn't realize it is its tail. Regardless, it is this type of reasoning we have come to expect from those that are willing to support this administration, forgive its incompetence - but, were unwilling to forgive his predicessors (you know, the one that left us a $300Billion a year surplus, etc, etc, etc).

In the weeks to come, few will be standing up for the way things were handled - after all the 2006 Senatorial and Representative electorals are upon us, and this is not going to go away like the Rove's fubar (and others). For anyone in political life (that is up for re-election) to compliment this cluster F' as a "valiant" effort? Well, it will be political suicide. After all, the whole world was watching. Ya know? The whole world was watching!

:balloon2:

Xiahou

09-04-2005, 10:20

But of course it is easy for locals to do it with 1/10th or 1/100th as many in their organizations, and several times as many folks to evacuate...right...
Well, the locals did have several things in their favor at the time.... like roads- those make evacuations easier.

Red Harvest

09-04-2005, 16:42

Do you expect a commission to be formed to investigate the mistakes made here, like with the 9/11 commission?

Yes, this MUST happen. Our whole approach to national emergency response must be reconsidered and reworked, I don't see how we can do this without taking a very critical look back at what failed and why. We mistakenly thought that some of the 9/11 changes better prepared us. Clearly they have not. Our national response appeared paralyzed in the two days preceeding landfall, and for 3 days afterwards.

This is not something that is going to be cured if it is not under a spotlight. Without a commission we'll be looking at the same sort of response next time. You cannot rely on the governmental authorities to review this internally. It has to be external and independent.

As Redleg, myself, and others see it there are some legal/mission hurdles that need to be addressed. Fairly broad executive powers can overcome them, but the legislative firewalls cause confusion and artificially restrict situations. These are the sort of things I believe the commission should be reviewing as well--in fact I would consider it one of the primary missions.

Red Harvest

09-04-2005, 16:53

Well, the locals did have several things in their favor at the time.... like roads- those make evacuations easier.

90 west was still available, and from what the anchors were saying for days it was not being utilized much. Problem was the authorities along it were working to prevent folks from getting in. I would have driven in with a truck full of bottled water myself, but that was not being allowed according to what anchors and others were saying. Nor was the Red Cross allowed in. It wasn't until the military convoys of Thursday that anything substantial happened.

Why wasn't help brought in? There was not sufficient security, nor was there supply. Security wasn't ready. There was not a rapid reaction force to stabilize the situation. It takes the military because the folks sent in must be able to feed/water/shelter themselves with the prospect of being unsupported for days.

Redleg

09-04-2005, 17:33

In 2003 President Bush cut funding to SELA (Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project) which was an Army Corps of Engineers run project to repair and expand the New Orleans Leeves. In a side note the reason for cuts in funding to SELA (according to the ACE), the Iraq War, incresed funding for Homeland Security, and tax cuts.

Further, in early 2004 President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to this Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness:

One must note that the budget process in the United States government follows a five year planning process. While this information is correct - one must then go back to see the actual impact on the projects for that year.

FEMA also failed to bus out people who couldn't afford to leave New Orleans before Katrina hit, if you couldn't for pay your way out you had to stay in New Orleans in "refuges of last restort" like the Super Dome. Now that they are busing people out (mostly to Houston), after leaving them there in the face of one of worst disasters in US history, House Speaker Dennis Hastert's comment on the situation was "I hope we in Houston aren't busing in New Orleans' problems."

Again one must understand how the agency of FEMA works. It comes into play once a diaster has occured and when the state and local resources have been exhausted. Does the system and agency need to be revamp - yes it does, but it has been needing revamping since the mid 1980's and several adminstrations have ignored FEMA only using it as a reactionary agency to support local efforts in recovering from a diaster.

Redleg

09-04-2005, 17:38

Yes, this MUST happen. Our whole approach to national emergency response must be reconsidered and reworked, I don't see how we can do this without taking a very critical look back at what failed and why. We mistakenly thought that some of the 9/11 changes better prepared us. Clearly they have not. Our national response appeared paralyzed in the two days preceeding landfall, and for 3 days afterwards.

Agree completely with the statement and the intent behind it. The system is flawed because it is designed for the Federal Govenment and its agencies only to become involved after the occurance of the emergancy.

This is not something that is going to be cured if it is not under a spotlight. Without a commission we'll be looking at the same sort of response next time. You cannot rely on the governmental authorities to review this internally. It has to be external and independent.

As Redleg, myself, and others see it there are some legal/mission hurdles that need to be addressed. Fairly broad executive powers can overcome them, but the legislative firewalls cause confusion and artificially restrict situations. These are the sort of things I believe the commission should be reviewing as well--in fact I would consider it one of the primary missions.

Agreed completely. It needs to be reviewed, people held accountable for thier failures, the system as designed needs to be held accountable for its failures and changes made. Congress must review its role in national diasters and take responsibility for its role in governing the nation.

econ21

09-04-2005, 18:22

Why wasn't help brought in? There was not sufficient security, nor was there supply.

The UK newspaper Sunday Times speculates that help was not brought in quickly enough because initially the authorities wanted people to evacuate. They did not want them to think they could stay and be supplied with food and water, as the city was so devastated it had to be cleared.

But what seems curious to me is that more was not done to facillitate an evacuation - it seems many of the people still in the city did not have the means of getting out. Moreover, they had been directed to congregate in the convention centre etc by police/National Guard on the ground, who assumed that they would be taken care of.

I keep thinking of AdrianII's question - where were the buses? He asked this of the evacuation before the hurricane, but it seems germane for a large part of last week too.

Personally, I think a disaster of this magnitude - effectively the loss of an entire city - has to be the responsibility first and foremost of the national government. It's no use leaving it up the Mayor - he's lost the city he's governing and presumably much of his resources. The State does not seem big enough to handle it either - hence moving the refugees to Houston, bringing in the marines etc. The new Department for Homeland Security - national, high profile, with the President's ear - would seem to be the ideal body to take charge, but seems to have been in denial for much of last week.

From the perspective of a citizen of the rather centralised British state, the management of this disaster seems to be case of federalism and local decentralisation taken too far. [I could say the same of a laissez-faire approach to government, but don't want to infuriate the conservatives here...] This kind of problem seems to be exactly the sort of situation where you do want big government and the army stepping in. They may not be able to run economies, or even pacify a foreign country, but evacuating a home city is one job they could do.

Red Harvest

09-04-2005, 20:36

Simon,

I agree with the comments. FEMA's own test scenario had shown that there were tens of thousands who could not evacuate on their own ahead of a major storm. That was something they were supposed to be trying to address--an action item. The local officials in New Orleans made a reasonable response, but they lacked the resources to do more. Could they have been better prepared long term, you bet! However, I don't think you will find other cities much better prepared either, based on my travels around the country and living in different areas for job assignments and the like. To say, "that wouldn't happen here" is foolhardy.

This is a national issue, it is more than a state can handle, and right now, the evacuees are more than even Texas can handle, despite only having a portion of them. We have at least a quarter of a million here now and the state is now trying to move some of them to other states. Our facilities and such are swamped with those in need.

Major issues:
1. There was a failure to do a coordinated national transportation response before and after. We need a mechanism to commandeer as much of the private/public mass transport as is needed. Folks will do this voluntarily if a system is in place. Americans will gladly help each other in need, but we need a mechanism so that we can do it. An example of one effecting major businesses: airlift capabilities like this for Europe were a key part of NATO planning.
2. There is a need for many more uniformed military/police with very robust communications gear on the ground ASAP. You can't do a forced evacuation for example unless you have a large pool of manpower to make it happen. That is beyond what the state guard can muster in 24 hours. It is many times what a city can muster while it is also trying to coordinate its own evacauation.
3. We need to set some very hard goals, like water and security to be provided to all major collections (convention center, shelters, Superdome, etc.) of populace in the zone withing 48 hours after an event. If it is an event which continues to grow worse with fires/floods/eruptions, etc. then evacuation of major collections should be well underway in 48 hours and mostly complete in 72 hours. You can't hope to get all those spread around so quickly, but this at least provides enough coverage to take care of the most the quickest--and it allows people to move towards the nearest collection point if they see activity. No matter how hard it looks or what transport routes are unavailable, this should be the goal, because otherwise the situation will become much worse. The deadline is not how long we think it will take, but how long people can be expected to hang on. Emphasizing the "dead" in deadline.
4. The shelter in surrounding regions should be worked out ahead of time. We are winging it! We should have concentric rings of facilities already identified, so that we can pick routes for evacuation--both before, and after.

We've got some glaring holes in our disaster planning. There has been a lot of effort toward early identification and containment, but that is primarily for terrorist attack or discrete focus problems.

QwertyMIDX

09-04-2005, 22:30

I will respond to this

Again one must understand how the agency of FEMA works. It comes into play once a diaster has occured and when the state and local resources have been exhausted. Does the system and agency need to be revamp - yes it does, but it has been needing revamping since the mid 1980's and several adminstrations have ignored FEMA only using it as a reactionary agency to support local efforts in recovering from a diaster.

with this:

I agree with the comments. FEMA's own test scenario had shown that there were tens of thousands who could not evacuate on their own ahead of a major storm. That was something they were supposed to be trying to address--an action item.

And this,

FEMA has responsibilities in what it defines as four domains of emergency management:

* Mitigation: Reducing the severity or likelihood of the hazard.
* Preparedness: Ensuring you have the capability to respond to the hazard.
* Response: Immediate actions taken to save lives, property, the
environment, and the economy.
* Recovery: Subsequent actions taken to restore property, jobs, and
services.

And a nifty graphic and caption from the FEMA website:

http://www.fema.gov/graphics/about/what.gif

"And at every stage of this cycle you see FEMA -- the federal agency charged with building and supporting the nation's emergency management system."

FEMA's job starts long before the a disaster occurs, saying otherwise contradicts not only FEMA's official stance, but also public expectations, and common sense.

Has it been neglected? Yes. By a series of administrations? Yes. Is it only a reaction agency? Ask FEMA.

octavian

09-05-2005, 02:15

well i dont really have time (or the knowledge-- though i guess thats true of most people posting here... simply going by what media reports are saying) to make much of a post. however i am fairly familiar with political appointments and such here in canada, and i dont suppose its much different in the US. as much as we may hate to admit it a very large number of people appointed to heads of government organiztions are there as a politcal favours and not because it is their area of expertise. more often than not it's the lower echelons of the organizations who actually do the work. the political appointee is simply a figurehead. while im not saying this is good or that it doesn't need to change. you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours is unfortunately a common thing in politics. (the Waterton E. Coli case in ontario is a good (small scale) example of this)

0ct

Redleg

09-05-2005, 04:41

Has it been neglected? Yes. By a series of administrations? Yes. Is it only a reaction agency? Ask FEMA.

Oh I have back in 1999 - and it was a reactionary agency back then - and from I have seen from the news reports now - it remains exactly the same. Lip service to the prepare and mitigate - concentrates on the response and the reaction to the diaster. Hell it was even establish by President Carter as an reaction to a previous hurricane.

Red Harvest

09-05-2005, 05:53

The toll on local officials: New Orleans Officers stressed (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/04/katrina.police.ap/index.html)

Let's not forget those who are being relied upon to maintain 24 hour security for 48 hours prior to and 72 hours after landfall also had families in the area. Several have committed suicide and a number either couldn't get to work, or decided to quit.

New Orleans has had problems with its police for decades. They had major corruption issues, but I think I had heard that some of that had been cleaned up in the past few years. (I don't know for sure of the outcome, as I'm not a New Orleans resident.) Good cop or bad cop, this would be hell on most folks and with only 1600 max police at their disposal, they never stood a chance left to themselves for very long.

We rightfully applauded the efforts of New York police and fire on 9/11 (which was far shorter in duration although incredibly dangerous and deadly for them.) Let's not forget what those officers in New Orleans (and elsewhere) have faced as a result of Katrina. It takes big brass ones to continue to go out and face the elements and odds that these folks had to endure for the first 72 hours or more. :bow:

Adrian II

09-05-2005, 07:16

A little digging has turned up some amazing dirt. The current head of FEMA, the astonishing Michael Brown, was fired from his previous job organizing horse shows. (http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=100857) I'm not making this up; I only wish I were.In a sense you are making this up. Apparently Mr Brown did have experience in FEMA before he was appointed Director:

Previously, Mr. Brown served as FEMA's Deputy Director and the agency's General Counsel. Shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Mr. Brown served on the President's Consequence Management Principal's Committee, which acted as the White House's policy coordination group for the federal domestic response to the attacks. Later, the President asked him to head the Consequence Management Working Group to identify and resolve key issues regarding the federal response plan. In August 2002, President Bush appointed him to the Transition Planning Office for the new Department of Homeland Security, serving as the transition leader for the EP&R Division.

link (http://www.fema.gov/about/bios/brown.shtm)
By the way these international horse shows are as corrupt a business as any other on this earth, so Mr Brown's resignation says very little about Mr Brown and his capabilities. For all we know, he may have been forced out of that job because he had detected corruption, since his previous job was that of special prosecutor for police disciplinary matters with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Of course, these days he is fair game and nobody cares.

Lemur

09-05-2005, 07:24

Adrian II

09-05-2005, 07:35

Point taken, Adrian. Please note that his FEMA CV omits all reference to his horsie time, even though he spent years at it.

As for "making it up," well, that seems a little strong. He was forced to resign from his last private sector job, and then went directly into FEMA, based on the recommendation of a college roommate. I don't think any of that is in dispute.Brown was indeed sacked, but it isn't clear at all that he was sacked because of his own failures -- they may have been other peoples' failures. The suggestion that he went straight to the top job at FEMA after a failed career of 11 years is a bit rich. His work at the Oklahoma Supreme Court prepared him for the sort of work he was initially given in FEMA. Nonetheless his promotion to Director may have been a huge mistake -- correction, was a huge mistake with hindsight.

Your point is taken as well, and you of course realise I am playing devil's advocate (or rather, loser's advocate) on this one. The reason is (if I may be so patronising) that I think Americans may never get to the bottom of this whole horrific episode if they concentrate on a couple of figure heads. You know, there are organisations that function flawlessly despite having total nincompoops at the helm.

EDIT
I guess part of the definition of a good organisation would have to be that it is capable of functioning despite the interference of its (possibly incompetent) leadership.

Lemur

09-05-2005, 07:48

Despite being a simple American (and yes, like all of us I'm easily distracted by shiny things), I've never believed that the unpardonable conduct of the initial recovery was any single person's -- much less department's -- fault. However, I have this feeling that the city of NOLA and the state of LA will come in for an appropriate level of scrutiny, while the Feds will more or less walk away whistling. So I'm probably guilty of over-attacking the Feds.

But just you watch -- over the next few weeks you're going to see everything possible dumped as low on the totem pole as possible, despite the fact that this was a massive, multi-state disaster.

Don't forget, the Backroom of the Org has its own scorched-earth atmosphere, full of charm and cinders. If you want to single-handedly bring perspective and balance to the room, then you're on a mission from God, as the Blues Brothers would say.

My personal take on the tagedy would be best summed up by Andrew Sullivan's latest column. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1764115,00.html)

Adrian II

09-05-2005, 07:59

Despite being a simple American (..)Alright, enough - you and me never played dem games in the past, cowboy, and I'm not gonna start playing 'em now.

But even as an outsider I can't help feeling involved and using what limited brains I have to make some sense of it all and communicate that to others. I do realise that is a far cry from providing help on the ground amid sounds of crying, gunfire and crashing helicopters.

Aenlic

09-05-2005, 08:29

The governor of Louisiana has brought in Clinton's man in FEMA, James Lee Witt as an advisor. While no reporter has yet managed to get Witt to blame Brown, he has been very careful to specifically praise "the career" FEMA employees for their dedication in the face massive problems. Career people meaning, of course, the opposite of a political appointee like Brown. Witt has also stated more than once today and yesterday in interviews that it was a mistake to downgrade FEMA from cabinet-level agency and roll it into the Department of Homeland Security, suggesting that doing so changed FEMA's focus too much to terrorist-caused disasters and away from natural disaster preparation and mitigation. He said that he created a special department of preparedness and mitigation during his tenure which was entirely dismantled due to budget cuts when FEMA was combined with Homeland Security.

Several Congressmen have said they will introduce legislation on Tuesday to separate FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security and make it a cabinet level position again.

And Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff spent the day playing CYA (cover your ass for those not familiar with the term) by making statements like this:

"Chertoff said FEMA is not equipped to send large numbers of people to help during a disaster."

Chertoff said federal authorities "moved as rapidly as we could," and added that he, too, was frustrated that the pace of the response was not quicker.

Interesting stuff.

And here's an interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/09/04/katrina.sick.redtape.ap/index.html

Bureaucratic red tape? That's the kind of thing that is supposed to be handled by FEMA. Organization and coordination and getting people to where they are supposed to be. But apparently, no one is in charge. Even though that is supposed to be Brown's job. Maybe he's off learning t play the guitar with Bush. There's a pretty picture. Bush playing guitar while people drown. Remind you of anyone?

Red Harvest

09-05-2005, 18:03

In a sense you are making this up. Apparently Mr Brown did have experience in FEMA before he was appointed Director:

He was a political appointee THEN as well. So no, he wasn't making it up.

The problems with FEMA as I understand them are:
1. Waaaayyyy too many political appointees. Career folks have no chance in such an atmosphere. Incompetent pandering to political whims will be rewarded over merit. Sticking your neck out to do a good job will get you fired.
2. The agency ironically lacks the sense of urgency that is needed. My wife has complained about FEMA in her dealings with them in the past, and she is doing so again now, because they take too damned long to make obvious decisions. That is a leadership problem. Hopefully tomorrow they will have the answers/procedures/paperwork they promised to provide by afternoon of last Friday. ~:rolleyes:
3. Historically, some smaller govt types have wanted to minimize its role. It was submerged in Homeland security partly for this reason. If you search through old articles (pre-9/11) you will find some major efforts to undermine the agency. It was being called a "free political candy" device for Clinton in 1997 for example.
4. It's role is a political football. One president wants to increase it, one wants to minimize it, another wants to alter it. Personally, I think it should be used mainly to handle the long term stuff, paying the bills, organizing the paper work, coordinating development of regional plans. The rapid response needs to be handled by some other group (such as the Pentagon, etc.) who has the logistical and organizational assets to manage it.

Adrian II

09-05-2005, 18:12

He was a political appointee THEN as well. So no, he wasn't making it up.Yes, he was: Brown has done more than direct those horse shows and it is not clear why he was fired from that job anyway. He should be fired now, even a silly Dutchman can see that.

So, you would want to give FEMA full cabinet status again, but delegate most of the practicalities to the Army, National Health, etcetera?

Red Harvest

09-05-2005, 18:20

So, you would want to give FEMA full cabinet status again, but delegate most of the practicalities to the Army, National Health, etcetera?

I'm not certain of how best to organize it. There are two basic missions: short term rapid response and longer term management, paying the bills, helping the displaced, as well as longer term planning. This *might* be done under one agency, but if so it will still need two different structures, because they are very different critters, the fast one requiring much streamlining and very clear authority.

Rather than trying to say "this is how it should be" I would like to see an independent commission evaluate this with some clear guidance about what sort of answers we are seeking: in a nutshell what will give us the best response, what needs to change to make that possible? I don't have the full answers, but I can easily see elements of the problem and make logical guesses about what the answers will be. Folks with more expertise should be able to do a better job of assessing the limitations and what is needed.

Adrian II

09-05-2005, 18:38

I'm not certain of how best to organize it.I will not even try to do so, because I know far too little about the American situation. But my country may have to face similar human or natural onslaughts, for instance due to terrorism, so I am interested in the general principles.

The immediate interventions needed during an emergency are mostly 'hands-on' as well as specialist in nature. According to most experts these interventions should preferably go into effect within 24 hours (and 72 at the maximum) after the original incident. This would point to the need for a limited staff that is responsible for the overall effort and that stands back and delegates the actual jobs in hand, if need be directly and forcefully, with the shortest possible delay.

That would require that you give this agency Authority with a capital 'a'. This is necessary because the Army will not suffer being relegated to second rank gladly (no difference there between the U.S. and Wooden Shoesia); medical personnel may not be easy to order around either, particularly if they are volunteers; and local authorities will want to have their say. In the end, no authority can be sustained if it does not command the respect of the ones who work with it. There is no safety in numbers when your name is Michael Brown... you need expertise to command authority.

So your renewed FEMA would need to incorporate, in a number of fields, the best experts that money can buy. It wouldn't have to be large, but it would have to be heavily loaded with expertise and it would have to fall directly under the command of the President, yet have to account to the people (Congress) on a yearly basis and at any other time is the need arises.

Hmmm. How am I doing so far?

Red Harvest

09-05-2005, 19:19

Hmmm. How am I doing so far?

Yep, that is one solution. The question is how well it would operate having authority over the military. Perhaps an overall coordinator of each emergency should be civilian (probably ex-military, but civilian appointed.) You need representatives familiar with police, fire, transportation, utilities, etc. However, in any big event, access is a big issue, and the military branches (and coast guard) are the only ones who can full those oversize shoes rapidly. Therefore, I suppose that the military needs to be given a clear mission early on, and told to request anything civilian they need to get it done (need 500 buses, need a string of fully supplied shelters to evacuate people to, need 100 civilian airliners, need barges, etc.) then let the military planners take the lead in making it happen. They will get respect like no others.

With medical personnel, I think if you give them a framework/staging areas and forward deployment areas that make sense, they will do just fine. The complaints I've seen is that they are not given accesss or the system is not letting them move far enough forward. They are understandably upset about being ready to go, and instead being stuck away form the congregations of evacuees.

Adrian II

09-05-2005, 19:45

Yep, that is one solution. The question is how well it would operate having authority over the military.The question is whether it should or should not have that authority. If modern crisis situations make such a division of responsibilities necessary, the Army will have to live with it. If the approach to a crisis by the appointed head of the emergency apparatus is rational and efficient, the Army will cooperate. If it is shoddy and incompetent, the Army will start bucking. And rightly so.

There is a major difference between the U.S. Army and the Dutch Army in that the latter has much less expertise and specific competence due to tradition, cut-backs, issues of scale, etcetera. Our Army does not operate huge laboratories, experimental farms, supercomputers or the most advanced means of communications like the U.S. Army does. Civilian participation would be much more (and sooner) needed here than in your country. Threat and damage asessment in a chemical or biological emergency for instance would require immediate collaboration with civilian scientists and technology experts. Our Army would not be able to command the same means or the same respect from civilians as the U.S. Army.
With medical personnel, I think if you give them a framework/staging areas and forward deployment areas that make sense, they will do just fine. The complaints I've seen is that they are not given accesss or the system is not letting them move far enough forward.That is my understanding, too. I have read some harrowing accounts of specialised (!) medical units geared for emergency intervention being sent back and forth across Louisiana day after day for all of last week before they could get to work (of course by that time they were exhausted from travelling under terrible circumstances, sleeping in their cars, eating too little, etcetera).

QwertyMIDX

09-05-2005, 20:27

Oh I have back in 1999 - and it was a reactionary agency back then - and from I have seen from the news reports now - it remains exactly the same. Lip service to the prepare and mitigate - concentrates on the response and the reaction to the diaster. Hell it was even establish by President Carter as an reaction to a previous hurricane.

The fact that they fail to do their entire job on a regular basis doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

Xiahou

09-06-2005, 01:26

Do you expect a commission to be formed to investigate the mistakes made here, like with the 9/11 commission?
I'm beginning to think it'd be a good idea. It could certainly clear the air and take a look at the facts of the matter rather than all of the red-faced screaming and finger pointing that is going on now.

A question I'd like to hear answered is why Nagin waited until Sunday afternoon to order the mandatory evactuation of New Orleans when they had been under a hurricane warning (meaning they were going to get hit) since Saturday. It apparently took a call from both the NHC and then the president to accomplish this.

Adrian II

09-06-2005, 01:31

A question I'd like to hear answered is why Nagin waited until Sunday afternoon to order the mandatory evactuation of New Orleans when they had been under a hurricane warning (meaning they were going to get hit) since Saturday. It apparently took a call from both the NHS and then the president to accomplish this.Or why Blanco waited till Thursday to sign for the release of those school buses we saw parked in three feet of water in that picture. It seems everybody down there was heeding Condoleezza Rice's motto 'The Lord wil provide in due time - let us just wait'.

But a good investigation shouldn't just kick up dirt. There are (sad) lessons to be learned from this by the entire world (or at least my country) with regard to crisis management and emergency procedures.

Lemur

09-06-2005, 02:22

If only people had heeded FEMA's rap song ... (http://www.fema.gov/kids/femarap.htm)

Disaster . . . it can happen anywhere,
But we've got a few tips, so you can be prepared
For floods, tornadoes, or even a 'quake,
You've got to be ready - so your heart don't break.

Disaster prep is your responsibility
And mitigation is important to our agency.

People helping people is what we do
And FEMA is there to help see you through
When disaster strikes, we are at our best
But we're ready all the time, 'cause disasters don't rest.

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 05:57

An interesting little piece about some more people trying to cast blame for a natural disaster. Fox did a great piece on how disaster relief works but sadly it didnt make it on their video site.

Whose is at Fault for Katrina? (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.html?083105/views_hume_083105&Special_Report_Grapevine&The%20Grapevine&acc&Opinion&-1&new)

Aenlic

09-06-2005, 06:00

Is this the same Fox News that was calling their hurricane and flood coverage "The Cost of Freedom"? Yeah, there's a group of intelligent people capable of unbiased news coverage. Uh huh.

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 06:10

No its not. The "Cost of Freedom" is what they call their business block on the weekends. Its pretty clever really. I dont know where you got that they were calling Katrina coverage that.. last I heard they were calling Katrina "Americas Challenge", which while corny, is pretty accurate.

BTW, since you took the time to bash Fox, I assume you took the time to watch the vid and can refute their information? If not, I would say you are being a bit pre-emptive in saying they are biased, which is typical among people of your persuasion.

Aenlic

09-06-2005, 06:32

And what, exactly, are you assuming my "persuasion" to be? This should be good.

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 06:38

Hmm.. Id say you are an anarcho-syndicalist with socialist-libertarian tendencies.

Now then, did you watch the short video or are you just wasting my time?

Aenlic

09-06-2005, 06:45

I'm no more wasting your time than you're wasting good air. Let me guess, you really have no clue what anarcho-syndicalism means, do you? You just assumed that I was a liberal, leading to your "typical among people of your persuasion" comment. How many liberals do you know that support gun ownership and oppose abortion? To me, liberals are just as bad as conservatives. If you're going to blindly categorize people, then I might as well pigeon hole Fox news as biased, right? I don't blame Fox for being a barely disguised propaganda machine for a particular political viewpoint. It's their right. I'd be more concerned if they weren't so obvious about it. ~D

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 07:00

And you still have nothing to say about the video clip I posted, where you have ignored the information and attacked the source.

Its almost as if you are trying to fulfill the preconcieved notions I have about people of your political persuasion. And they say people dont fit labels.. :laugh4:

Aenlic

09-06-2005, 07:09

That's what I thought.

And I already gave my opinion of the Fox video.

For some reason, I have this irresistible urge to act like John Cleese in episode #6 of Fawlty Towers. ~:rolleyes:

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 07:45

And I already gave my opinion of the Fox video.

Where? Youve only given the tired old response to anything concerning FoxNews that moveon tells you to give.

I dont know why I even bother with liberal trolls in moderate's clothing anymore, your prepackaged opinions are easy enough to guess. Where is JAG? At least he brought a different sort of liberal viewpoint to the table and wasnt ashamed of what he believed.

But congratulations. Through an excellent use of trolling, youve managed to sideline the video I thought gave an interesting take on the Katrina blame game. You win, crawl back under your bridge. Thats what I get for trying to have a rational discussion. :no:

Aenlic

09-06-2005, 07:46

How can I have a rational discussion with someone who can't tell the difference between a liberal and a libertarian?

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 07:52

I apologize, I misspoke. I should have said "I dont know why I even bother with liberal trolls in libertarian's clothing anymore, your prepackaged opinions are easy enough to guess." :bow:

Aenlic

09-06-2005, 08:04

Anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal. Really? So you wouldn't be upset if I just ceased trying to argue points with you rationally and simply said Sieg! in reponse to all of your comments? Gotcha. ~:)

Lemur

09-06-2005, 08:12

An interesting little piece about some more people trying to cast blame for a natural disaster.

Whose is at Fault for Katrina? (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.html?083105/views_hume_083105&Special_Report_Grapevine&The%20Grapevine&acc&Opinion&-1&new)
Wow, I don't watch much Fox, but they really pile it on, don't they? Germany and Ms. Sheehan say that Bush's climate policies led to the hurricane, and by the way, lots of people think Dems are hostile to religion. And that's the opinion piece for the day. Sorry, the "grapevine" piece. Of everything going on right now, that's what they need to emphasize and bring to the public's immediate attention.

To paraphrase Gawain, "They may be partisan, but at least they're honest about it!" Oh, wait, they aren't ...

[edit]

Now that I listened to the wisdom of Fox news, I insist that PJ listen to the entirety of the FEMA rap for kids. (http://www.fema.gov/kids/femarap.htm)

Adrian II

09-06-2005, 08:19

To paraphrase Gawain, "They may be partisan, but at least they're honest about it!" Oh, wait, they aren't ...Doesn't look like Pulitzer material to me.

It seems my brethren in crime will have to do some more rectification soon, at least if this Guardian report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,16441,1563532,00.html) is to be believed. Apparently quite a few stories about murder and rape at the Convention Center and elsewhere in New Orleans were untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated. Well, what else is new(s)?

Aenlic

09-06-2005, 08:20

Here's a video clip you won't be seeing on Fox.

It's the president of the Jefferson parish, the equivalent of a county commissioner: http://www.bushwatch.net/mtp_broussard_barbour_050904C.mov

QwertyMIDX

09-06-2005, 08:44

Hmm.. Id say you are an anarcho-syndicalist with socialist-libertarian tendencies.

I am amused by how little sense that makes, nice one ~:cheers:.

Red Harvest

09-06-2005, 19:33

Doesn't look like Pulitzer material to me.

It seems my brethren in crime will have to do some more rectification soon, at least if this Guardian report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,16441,1563532,00.html) is to be believed. Apparently quite a few stories about murder and rape at the Convention Center and elsewhere in New Orleans were untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated. Well, what else is new(s)?

Don't worry, we have Fox on guard claiming all sorts of things that aren't true. They are working hard to blame this on local officials and the residents themselves. They carry lots of great footage, but their spin on the news is blatant. PJ's clip is an example of what Fox considers "Fair and Balanced." I especially like the guilt by association of Fahraqan with Sheehan. They know what plays to their right wing audience. I actually saw the clip when it aired, then changed the channel looking for news. Fox is more a political organ than a network. Bad news for them if public sentiment turns away from the right wing, as their publicly perceived "credibility" is tied directly to Dubya's--a foundation of mud.

If you want an eye opener, hunt for the clip of Sheperd Smith and Geraldo breaking ranks and ripping on those idiots sitting at Fox, Hannity and Colmes. Haven't seen Shep since.

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 19:43

Don't worry, we have Fox on guard claiming all sorts of things that aren't true. They are working hard to blame this on local officials and the residents themselves. They carry lots of great footage, but their spin on the news is blatant. PJ's clip is an example of what Fox considers "Fair and Balanced." I especially like the guilt by association of Fahraqan with Sheehan. They know what plays to their right wing audience. I actually saw the clip when it aired, then changed the channel looking for news. Fox is more a political organ than a network. Bad news for them if public sentiment turns away from the right wing, as their publicly perceived "credibility" is tied directly to Dubya's--a foundation of mud.

If you want an eye opener, hunt for the clip of Sheperd Smith and Geraldo breaking ranks and ripping on those idiots sitting at Fox, Hannity and Colmes. Haven't seen Shep since.

Wow, you watched the clip. I appreciate your open mind.

First of all, can you dispute any of the information presented in the clip or is it just "right-wing bias"?

Second, that 3 minute segment comes 30 minutes into a 60 minute news show. If you look at the hard news presented on CNN, MSNBC, or any other news program, its the same news. I would guess the headlines on the various news sites are all relatively the same. However, everyone knows Brit Hume is the best anchor - ever. ~;)

Third, Shep Smith was on Oreilly last night getting all sorts of compliments for his work, so that little implication that he's been sidelined can be put to bed.

Adrian II

09-06-2005, 19:57

Due to his own incompetence it is probably too little, too late for Mr Brown, but... The Washington Post is running an article today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501590.html?sub=AR) that sheds a somewhat milder light on his previous career:

Allbaugh hired Brown after an acrimonious end to a nine-year stint as commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. Former officials say he was forced out; a friend and lawyer of Brown's said he negotiated a settlement after withstanding numerous lawsuits against his enforcement of rules for judges and stewards.

Defending his qualifications, Brown said he has overseen responses to 164 presidential declared emergencies and disasters as FEMA counsel and general counsel, including the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster and the California wildfires in 2003. "I have been through a few disasters," he said at a news conference yesterday.

Red Harvest

09-06-2005, 20:16

Wow, you watched the clip. I appreciate your open mind.

First of all, can you dispute any of the information presented in the clip or is it just "right-wing bias"?

It was irrelevant, focused on causes of the storm rather than the relief effort. It was presented in an utterly biased fashion, pandering to an audience, rather than reporting anything of value.

Second, that 3 minute segment comes 30 minutes into a 60 minute news show. If you look at the hard news presented on CNN, MSNBC, or any other news program, its the same news. I would guess the headlines on the various news sites are all relatively the same. However, everyone knows Brit Hume is the best anchor - ever. ~;)
Quite the opposite, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have had quite different headlines than Fox. Fox is clearly trying to play up the local blame side with what it choses as its headlines when compared to the others. Fox was in hero worship mode for too long on this one, seriously behind the curve.

Like I said, I switched channels about that same point, I did not see the remainder of the broadcast as it wasn't reporting anything important. I wanted some news, not irrelevant spin. I'll never trust anything Brit Hume says again after what I've seen on Fox over the last week.

Third, Shep Smith was on Oreilly last night getting all sorts of compliments for his work, so that little implication that he's been sidelined can be put to bed.
I never said what became of him, I had not heard Fox mention him and had not seen him for some time. I do suspect he will be rethinking his career choices, or be seeking to alter some of Fox's spin. It might be best if he could fight it from the inside. Long term we will see if this changes anything. The look of resignation on his face suggests to me that you might be surprised at what happens in the next few weeks.

In summary, Fox's interpretation of many things was about as delayed as the President's and his appointees. The guys on the ground eventually started putting it altogether, piecing together a good picture of what they had been showing. If you've seen the clip where Shep and Geraldo go off, you can clearly see that they've both lost faith in what they are hearing from the Administration. Fox was way behind the curve on reporting this. Even now, Fox is in "Blame the Victim" mode.

Red Harvest

09-06-2005, 20:19

Aenlic

09-06-2005, 20:44

In related news, we have a resurgence of Brown's previous boss, the guy PJ claims suggested Brown for his abilities and was thus the real impetus for Brown's appointment by Bush to head FEMA. It seems that not only has Joe Allbaugh been profiteering off of the war in Iraq running a consulting firm advising businesses seeking to expand into Iraq; but it seems he was also hired by KBR in March of this year as a lobbyist. He was instrumental this week in getting a contract for KBR to work on Navy vessels damaged by the storm. What is KBR, you ask? Why KBR is just an acronym for Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Funny how these things work out, isn't it?

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 20:45

It was irrelevant, focused on causes of the storm rather than the relief effort. It was presented in an utterly biased fashion, pandering to an audience, rather than reporting anything of value.

Well whether its relevant or not is purely subjective. It was news was it not? Cindy Sheehan certainly wasnt irrelevant when she seemed reasonable was she?

And how was it presented in a biased fashion? Did you not think it was valuable what a top German official says about the disaster? I see nothing worthless in reporting the international take on things. Also the poll was very on topic for a political news show was it not?

Im fascinated by this whole "presented in a biased fashion" viewpoint. To me, it seems as if he just read some facts off the teleprompter. No one has pointed to anything false in the clip, yet somehow it is still biased.

Quite the opposite, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have had quite different headlines than Fox. Fox is clearly trying to play up the local blame side with what it choses as its headlines when compared to the others. Fox was in hero worship mode for too long on this one, seriously behind the curve.

Not true, check out the headlines now. www.cnn.com / www.foxnews.com

They both say basically the same thing. Both get most of their news from the AP anyway.

Like I said, I switched channels about that same point, I did not see the remainder of the broadcast as it wasn't reporting anything important. I wanted some news, not irrelevant spin. I'll never trust anything Brit Hume says again after what I've seen on Fox over the last week.

Fox has done some of the best reporting this week. Theyve had people in places CNN and MSNBC didnt dare go. But if you insist on not hearing anything but Bush Bashing, be my guest. Do you not feel that the local reaction deserves mention? Its called balance.

In summary, Fox's interpretation of many things was about as delayed as the President's and his appointees. The guys on the ground eventually started putting it altogether, piecing together a good picture of what they had been showing. If you've seen the clip where Shep and Geraldo go off, you can clearly see that they've both lost faith in what they are hearing from the Administration. Fox was way behind the curve on reporting this. Even now, Fox is in "Blame the Victim" mode.

All news agencys had a hard time wrapping their hands around such a big disaster. I have yet to see anyone on Fox blame the victims of this for anything. In fact, theyve done some great pieces in the Astrodome about how the victims are holding out so well in such a horrible situation.

Red Harvest

09-06-2005, 21:21

Well whether its relevant or not is purely subjective.
No it is perfecly objective. The link was about proposed global warming causes, which had nothing to do with the emergency response. Might as well have been talking about ping pong in China as it was irrelevant.

And how was it presented in a biased fashion?
If it isn't obvious to you, then there is nothing I can ever do to prove it.

Not true, check out the headlines now. www.cnn.com / www.foxnews.com

They both say basically the same thing. Both get most of their news from the AP anyway.

No they don't, and more importanly they *haven't*. Of course if someone can't sniff the obvious bias in that clip you linked to or its lack of relevance, then they are unlikely to be able to detect other differences in reporting, particularly what has been missing. Fox has been far slower to pick up on anything critical of the Federal response, they've been fast to blast locals.

Fox has done some of the best reporting this week. Theyve had people in places CNN and MSNBC didnt dare go. But if you insist on not hearing anything but Bush Bashing, be my guest. Do you not feel that the local reaction deserves mention? Its called balance.
Good on the spot reporting, yes. That's the only reason I watched them. Interpretation...out to lunch. That hit a boiling point with the Hannity and Colmes segment where the reporters on the scene objected to the spin.

The local on the spot reporting all showed a failed federal response. All of it. Claim what you like but it was obvious for anyone to see, who actually cared to look. That's why I started that "Lack of Preparedness" thread. I had noticed the problem from the reporting 24 hours prior to that. Fox took about 24 hours longer than CNN to catch on. Yes, I was watching. CNN and the Weather channel had some very good reporting early on.

I have yet to see anyone on Fox blame the victims of this for anything. In fact, theyve done some great pieces in the Astrodome about how the victims are holding out so well in such a horrible situation.
Oh come on. That is complete BS. They've been headlining looting and lawlessness as their main topics for 5 days. They were doing, "Stop the Blame Game" 24 hours before ANY federal convoys had arrived. I flipped them on for 5 minutes this morning and ALL I heard was "local officials were unprepared" ad nauseum--reported from Baton Rouge by the way...not New Orleans.

PanzerJaeger

09-06-2005, 22:17

No it is perfecly objective. The link was about proposed global warming causes, which had nothing to do with the emergency response. Might as well have been talking about ping pong in China as it was irrelevant.

First of all, the Global Warming bit was directly linked to Katrina due to the fact that the German fellow blamed Katrina on America causing global warming.

Second, Special Report is a news show, not a Katrina show. There has been other news besides Katrina in the last week you know.

If it isn't obvious to you, then there is nothing I can ever do to prove it.

That speaks volumes. Bias is a rather straightforward thing. Is he twisting facts to fit an agenda or not? Ill assume you cannot contest any of the information provided, you just dont like what you heard.

No they don't, and more importanly they *haven't*. Of course if someone can't sniff the obvious bias in that clip you linked to or its lack of relevance, then they are unlikely to be able to detect other differences in reporting, particularly what has been missing. Fox has been far slower to pick up on anything critical of the Federal response, they've been fast to blast locals.

Thats simply not true. The only two shows I watch regularly, Special Report and Oreilly have been very critical of both the local and federal government. You dont think its fair to criticize the obvious faults of the local government aswell? It seems you are looking for the news to give Bush a black eye rather than the truth of what really happened, which involves several branches of the government.

Oh come on. That is complete BS. They've been headlining looting and lawlessness as their main topics for 5 days. They were doing, "Stop the Blame Game" 24 hours before ANY federal convoys had arrived. I flipped them on for 5 minutes this morning and ALL I heard was "local officials were unprepared" ad nauseum--reported from Baton Rouge by the way...not New Orleans.

Every news channel headlined the looting. :dizzy2: That has a lot more to do with ratings than any secret political agenda.

You seem to be objecting to Fox reporting that the local authorities were unprepared. Is it that you dont think thats accurate or you dont think its newsworthy? :thinking:

Redleg

09-06-2005, 22:20

The best reporting on the diaster as it happened was by The Weather Channel, all the rest of the stations and networks were all after ratings and thier methods of reporting reflect that.

To bad The Weather Channel doesn't carry much hard news besides the weather. They are by far the most unbaised of reporters I have seen cover the events around New Orleans.

Notice how much the discussion is being focused around the spin being placed on the situation by both parties. Frankly I have stopped watching most news networks for now. I catch about five minutes of fox at the top of the hour and 10 minutes on Headline News about 3 times a day. I have been skipping all other sources on the television and primarily relying on google searches for links to multiple reports - so I can try to figure out what is the news verus what is being spun.

The blame for the lack of prepareness for this diaster lies primarily with the city and the state. The blame for the lack of proper response lies with the Federal Government.

All are equally at fault in my opinion - and everything else is spin where the media is focusing on only one part of it. The news is doing a terrible job on reporting, focusing on the party politic spin verus coverning the actual news and human interest..

Several people in the Federal Government working in FEMA and Homeland Security need to be fired, both agencies need a serious going over and needed reforms done. The governor of Louisana needs to be recalled for gross negilence, and the Mayor needs to face the consequences of his decisions. I don't think he is guilty of negilience - just incomptency and complaincy in dealing with this crisis.

Red Harvest

09-06-2005, 22:40

PJ,

You can't seem to tell the difference between focus and reporting. I've watched enough of this to tell the difference. Fox's efforts to pin blame and to praise were/are transparent. They were not asking hard questions of the Feds when they should have. Their response has been only slightly faster than the Federal response, and that ain't good.

I could go into tons of detail, but it just isn't worth it. You are always going to see it the other way.

Many of the "faults" reported of the local government response have been unreasonable. They have been faulted for things which were clearly out of their control with a storm of this magnitude that hit at this speed. The way I see it, they fulfilled their primary roles, not perfectly, but well enough for a fast developing situation with limited resources. The failure was in the handoff to state and Federal.

I'm not ready to give anyone a pass, that's one reason why a commission is needed. However, from what I saw of the timing and efforts taken, the local response was an order of magnitude quicker and more appropriate than the Federal response.

The Guard reliance is misplaced. As folks have pointed out, their numbers are diminished (and insufficient even if undiminished.) Also, quite a bit of their equipment does not appear to be sitting in armories anymore. For the past two years they've looked empty when I drive by them.

Another part is that the proponents of small government now have to face the fact that this sort of response and lack of preparedness are a side effect of pushes toward smaller govt. Some folks seem to think the only federal spending should be on the military, and that infrastructure support should be slashed. Here you go...this is one example of happens with that sort of approach, poor Federal response, and inadequate infrastructure to prevent a disaster.

Adrian II

09-06-2005, 22:55

Another part is that the proponents of small government now have to face the fact that this sort of response and lack of preparedness are a side effect of pushes toward smaller govt. Some folks seem to think the only federal spending should be on the military, and that infrastructure support should be slashed. Here you go...this is one example of happens with that sort of approach, poor Federal response, and inadequate infrastructure to prevent a disaster.Here is another guy who got fired three years ago because he couldn't take it anymore:

American Society of Civil Engineers (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/grwk/event_release.cfm?uid=1510)

March 8, 2002

Michael Parker, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the top civilian in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, resigned suddenly on March 6. The former Republican congressman from Mississippi reportedly was asked to resign because the White House was upset with the way Parker had seemed to undermine the Bush administration's proposed cut to the Corps' FY 2003 budget. Parker testified before his former colleagues on the House Appropriations' Water and Power Subcommittee on Feb. 27. The comment which apparently angered Bush administration officials addressed the White House's $4.18 billion budget proposal, a $460 million cut from the FY 2002 enacted level. Parker said the proposal was a starting point and not a figure that he expected to hold firm during the appropriations process, particularly because of the common practice whereby lawmakers earmark water projects for their home districts. President Bush and the White House Office of Management and Budget have said they are vehemently opposed to such efforts, particularly in light of what they say are the heightened spending needs for homeland security and the overseas war efforts.
Of course a breakdown of effective government results in a vicious circle in which people regard their government with even more contempt, resulting in further cuts, loss of prestige and authority, and further failures.

There is an uncanny resemblance between the lack of planning for the Iraq war and the lack of planning for this disaster. You can't have national security on the cheap.

Aenlic

09-07-2005, 02:32

Here's a quote that goes right to the heart of the matter:

"I don't want to abolish government, I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." - Grover Norquist, major strategist behind Bush's tax policy (Norquist in his own words on NPR (http://www.thenationaldebate.com/audio/GroverNorquistBathtubQuote.mp3))

It isn't the government that this sort of thinking drowned this time.

http://www.bushwatch.net/53911202.jpg

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 02:33

The blame for the lack of prepareness for this diaster lies primarily with the city and the state. The blame for the lack of proper response lies with the Federal Government.
I agree with this for the most part. The city and the state should have had better evacuation plans. I differ with you mainly on the local level. The state should have had an all out effort to bring in buses and control the roads to make evacuation possible. Problem is, you can't do it well on the fly with so few hours. The plan must be there ahead of time.

I don't believe it was possible for New Orleans to fully evacuate itself on such short notice even if it had a great plan. You need more security and transport from outside to make it happen. The locals share responsibility for this shortfall with the state, but also with the Feds. You can't just move half a million people out in a little over 24 hours without some idea of how to distribute them. That becomes national in a hurry. Nationally, you need to have network of areas with sufficient facilities and roads/logistical support to make it work. We have the resources and capability, we just haven't identified them ahead of time.

Regardless of city/state unpreparedness (or perhaps because of it) the Feds have the primary responsibility for the response. After an event reaches some scale (Andrew, Katrina, big Cali quakes, etc.) it is well past what locals can be expected to manage.

Forced evacuation is not something the average U.S. citizen or official is comfortable with. "Mandatory" sounds good to Americans...until it becomes enforced at gun point, etc. Honestly, I think we need some societal discipline rethink in this regard. There are too many people in New Orleans even today, trying to hang on. Frankly, they are a fire risk, health risk, and security risk and need to go no matter how good their intentions. Give them overnight to tidy up/get their heads right, and then start forcible removal for those who won't budge.

The biggest debate looming is the scale of the failure at each level and that is evident in the various discussions. If I had to rank each level on how well it performed its responsibilities in the lead up and first 3 to 5 days, I would rate it:
Best: Local
Worst: Federal
Unknown (and possibly worst, almost certainly not best): State

Redleg

09-07-2005, 03:09

I agree with this for the most part. The city and the state should have had better evacuation plans. I differ with you mainly on the local level. The state should have had an all out effort to bring in buses and control the roads to make evacuation possible. Problem is, you can't do it well on the fly with so few hours. The plan must be there ahead of time.

I agree complete with this paragraph

I don't believe it was possible for New Orleans to fully evacuate itself on such short notice even if it had a great plan. You need more security and transport from outside to make it happen. The locals share responsibility for this shortfall with the state, but also with the Feds. You can't just move half a million people out in a little over 24 hours without some idea of how to distribute them. That becomes national in a hurry. Nationally, you need to have network of areas with sufficient facilities and roads/logistical support to make it work. We have the resources and capability, we just haven't identified them ahead of time.

Agree. What you are talking about here is an actual evacuation plan - one that takes all three levels to adequatily execute. Which also means that all three levels have to make and coordinate the plan in the planning process and execute at least one rehearsal.

Regardless of city/state unpreparedness (or perhaps because of it) the Feds have the primary responsibility for the response. After an event reaches some scale (Andrew, Katrina, big Cali quakes, etc.) it is well past what locals can be expected to manage.

Disagree - all three have different levels of response. The city in the case of evacuation has the lead - which is the requirement to make the call to evacuate. If its a national responsiblity then only the President has the ability to make the call. In situations like this I want the leader on site to make the call and then the system to immediately begin to work based upon his/her call. The size of the event should be taken in consideration in the plan. The city Mayor had the direct obligation to ask for assistance from the Governor.

That is one of the reason I think for this to work better large cities need the ability to directly coordinate with Federal agencies to plan for evacuation. This is where the Federal Government can do much better in the planning process. Link up national resources with large cities for planning evacuations. Image if the city of New Orleans had direct coordination with Folk Polk and some of the Military transportation there.

Possible scenerio:

In four to six hours from the city's plan to evacuate the Military could of arranged for security on the route out - provided some transportation in the form of trucks of many different types and several types of buses that sit in the motorpool there. How many people could of been spared if the military was immediately called in - I would guess about 10,000 willing evacuatee's.

Without establishment of Maritial law and an active plan to force evacuation - which would be intensive in manpower and coordination. Even then given the time between the mandatory evacuation the the hurrican hitting - I don't think even a well established plan would of reduced the causalities or suffering of those who whould have been forced to evacuate.

Fort Polk is about 4 to 5 hours from New Orleans if my memory serves me correctly. However to do this several current laws will have to be reviewed and changed. There is presendence in the Military Assistance to Civilian missions and the legislation from congress - but Posse Comaitus (SP) would have to be reviewed and revamp to actually make it work.

Forced evacuation is not something the average U.S. citizen or official is comfortable with. "Mandatory" sounds good to Americans...until it becomes enforced at gun point, etc. Honestly, I think we need some societal discipline rethink in this regard. There are too many people in New Orleans even today, trying to hang on. Frankly, they are a fire risk, health risk, and security risk and need to go no matter how good their intentions. Give them overnight to tidy up/get their heads right, and then start forcible removal for those who won't budge.

Yep that is the holdover from the Posse Comitas and the Civil War. However you are right the Government now has the obligation to remove these people from harms way - even if it has to be forced.

The biggest debate looming is the scale of the failure at each level and that is evident in the various discussions. If I had to rank each level on how well it performed its responsibilities in the lead up and first 3 to 5 days, I would rate it:
Best: Local
Worst: Federal
Unknown (and possibly worst, almost certainly not best): State
[/quote]

agreed - and I would definetly place the state as the worst of the lot. The Governor screwed up major - especially if the statement about needing 24 hours to think is true. If that is true the state of Lousiana needs to look at criminal charges being placed on the governor for gross neglience and manslaughter.

Xiahou

09-07-2005, 03:14

Regardless of city/state unpreparedness (or perhaps because of it) the Feds have the primary responsibility for the response. After an event reaches some scale (Andrew, Katrina, big Cali quakes, etc.) it is well past what locals can be expected to manage.I don't know that's the case. Primary response is always the responsibility of local/state agencies. Maybe you don't think it should be the case, but that's not the way our government is currently setup. The only way I know of that the federal government could've intervened from the beginning would've been to declare a state of insurrection- which would've allowed the federal gov to deploy military assets without state approval.

If I had to rank each level on how well it performed its responsibilities in the lead up and first 3 to 5 days, I would rate it:
Best: Local
Worst: Federal
Unknown (and possibly worst, almost certainly not best): StateSomething just tastes bad about saying any group was "best", especially the New Orleans gov- considering they sent people to shelters with no supplies and actually instructed people to eat a meal before coming to the shelters and bring their own bedding.

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 03:47

I don't know that's the case. Primary response is always the responsibility of local/state agencies. Maybe you don't think it should be the case, but that's not the way our government is currently setup. The only way I know of that the federal government could've intervened from the beginning would've been to declare a state of insurrection- which would've allowed the federal gov to deploy military assets without state approval.
First, the current system doesn't work, period. The idea of exhausting local resources is foolish. It's like telling those in the Alamo, "hold out as long as you can, when you are about to collapse we'll be there" (NOT!) Some of it is legislation based on power struggles, some of it is money, some of it is party politics (desire to shrink FEMA or change its role, etc.) The difference between leadership and going through the motions is acting boldly and effectively to avert a worse disaster. That didn't happen. Nagin came closest when he finally went on a tirade. Within 12 hours many things were improving and the govt response went from pathetic to what most of us anticipated. Whether you like Nagin or not, that was leadership. I can't believe he waited as long as he did. In his place I would have gone off the handle at least a day before (squeaky wheel gets the grease.) I don't care if it was the state or Feds holding things up, what he said was on the mark.

Second, presidents have federalized the guard before in lesser emergencies. If it is a national disaster, a lot can happen. I suspect part of the problem here is the current leadership's push for "states rights" type approaches. That ties their hands.

Something just tastes bad about saying any group was "best", especially the New Orleans gov- considering they sent people to shelters with no supplies and actually instructed people to eat a meal before coming to the shelters and bring their own bedding.
Considering it was last resort to ride out a storm that would likely destroy their dwellings and/or drown them, this was very reasonable advice. The problem was not the use of the Dome, but the lack of supply evacuation security in the following 4 or 5 days. The city was stretched far too thin to manage this for so long. They expected help (as did the nation.) It didn't come. Concentrating people like this *should* have made the state/Federal efforts far easier.

My wife now understands why I take no chances when such situations are looming. I tell her we are getting out early rather than waiting for the rush, what is coming with us (including which particular weapons) and how I'm going to react to certain situations. She always thought I was a wee bit paranoid. She's a believer now.

Papewaio

09-07-2005, 03:50

Do you read instruction manuals before assembling? (I do)

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 03:58

Do you read instruction manuals before assembling? (I do) Yeah, my wife gets really irritated about that as well...

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 04:04

Saw a clip tonight that Dubya is saying he will personally lead an investigation into the handling of this response. In his dreams! This one is going to be going before an independent commission. I don't think anyone is going to allow Mr. WMD/Abu Ghraib/Rove protector to investigate his own response. This is no different than NASA's disasters or 9/11. If his people actually did perform well he should want an outside investigation. That is how you actually are vindicated, by independents.

Redleg

09-07-2005, 04:08

My wife now understands why I take no chances when such situations are looming. I tell her we are getting out early rather than waiting for the rush, what is coming with us (including which particular weapons) and how I'm going to react to certain situations. She always thought I was a wee bit paranoid. She's a believer now.

My wife gets mad at me for having 5 different ways to get out of Dallas and 3 different routes to visit her parents in near Kansas City, and then the 6 different routes I use to go to work. She wont let me take my alternate routes to Killeen to visit my brother and his family.

Sometimes I am just to damn security conscience for my own good,

Lemur

09-07-2005, 04:52

Worth taking a look at -- there's a partial list of FEMA's interference with early recovery efforts. (http://constructiveinterference.blogspot.com/2005/09/local-failure-caused-by-fema.html) The site is partisan, but everything is linked and documented, so there's good data to be had.

I really don't see how the Executive Branch can avoid giving Michael Brown his walking papers ... for a start. Let's getting rid of Michael Brown as credibility minimum wage.

Xiahou

09-07-2005, 05:56

First, the current system doesn't work, period.Yeah, that's fine to say- and it most definitely needs some changing, but I don't see where we can legitimately call for political crucifixions of people who were following the system that was in place.

As a side, I think it's worth noting that I never supported Homeland Security being made into a cabinet Dept. I, and many other on the right, were concerned that it would become a beaurocratic nightmare- I believe it was Democrats that demanded it be made so. I believe it was also the 9/11 Commission that mandated FEMA and other agencies be shifted under the control of this new Department. Now, our legislators are talking about seperating FEMA again- I wish they'd make up their minds.

Lemur

09-07-2005, 06:03

As a side, I think it's worth noting that I never supported Homeland Security being made into a cabinet Dept. I, and many other on the right, were concerned that it would become a beaurocratic nightmare- I believe it was Democrats that demanded it be made so.
You really ought to back up a claim like that with a linky. I did some searching and found absolutely nothing to back it up -- but perhaps your Google skills are superior to mine. All I could find was a clip from an old NY Times piece:

"The stripes on [Senator Robert Byrd's] jacket appeared to be trembling as much from indignation as from the infirmities of his 84 years as the senator held out his palm, and the power of parliamentary rules, before the onrushing bulldozer of the proposed Homeland Security Department. 'Have we all completely taken leave of our senses?' he said... [The President] 'is shouting, 'Pass the bill, pass the bill!... If ever there was a time for the Senate to throw a bucket of cold water on an overheated legislative process that is spinning out of control,' he said, 'it is now. Now!' ... All but single-handedly, Mr. Byrd has slowed the Homeland Security juggernaut by implicitly threatening a filibuster, almost certainly forcing the Senate to postpone debate until after the August recess... The Senate was virtually empty when he finished, but a sizable crowd of visitors in the gallery broke into applause."

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 06:15

Yeah, that's fine to say- and it most definitely needs some changing, but I don't see where we can legitimately call for political crucifixions of people who were following the system that was in place.
Crucifixions are in order. People should be held accountable. They showed no leadership in leadership positions. I don't believe that everyone else should suffer while poor leadership performance is swept under the rug as if it was a minor infraction. In this case, the appointees hid behind their bureaucracies and misled the people, and those in the disaster zones. I don't want another Brown to be willing to accept a job like this if he can't manage it. It is a major responsibility.

The system is far from perfect, but it doesn't have to be this bad. The biggest problem other than the system itself was a lack of URGENCY by the President, by Chertoff, and by Brown (probably also by Blanco.) I've heard Rumsfeld was also involved in less than stellar fashion. Until very direct heat was applied, nothing was happening as it should have.

Xiahou

09-07-2005, 07:23

You really ought to back up a claim like that with a linky. I did some searching and found absolutely nothing to back it up -- but perhaps your Google skills are superior to mine. Perhaps. ~;)

It is, admittedly, tough to find the "as it happened" news articles on it. I still remember the TV stories- it was just a few years ago. The White House argued that it was unecessary to create a new cabinet dept, but we being hammered by Democrats on it. Clearly, coming out against "homeland security" was a loser, so eventually Bush turned around and supported it in what was likely election politics.
Democratic opposition to it revolved mainly around union special interests. They didn't want the president to have hiring/firing power without going thru union channels... talk about being beholden to special interests. :dizzy2:

Anyhow, this (http://www.factcheck.org/article246.html) link from factcheck.org outlines the whole mess pretty well- Kerry tried to campaign on his support for the Dept and Bush's initial opposition. There are plenty more links that talk about Bush's initial opposition to the Dept, but like I said, the "as it happened" articles seem to have vanished.

As a further aside, myself and others were also opposed to the creation of a new Nation Intelligence Director. Honestly, when will people realize that adding layer upon layer of government beaurocracy almost never makes things more efficient?

Address the problems. We need cool heads, not knee-jerk overreactions. 9/11 brought many of the latter, and, sadly, I think Katrina will too.

Adrian II

09-07-2005, 08:02

The state should have had an all out effort to bring in buses and control the roads to make evacuation possible. Problem is, you can't do it well on the fly with so few hours.Now you're talking. If Blanco had commandeered those school buses on Saturday, many would have been in NO on Sunday and they would have been able to operate relatively easy because most of the private cars had left by Sunday afternoon. And of course there would have been problems, small riots, bus crashes, as well as lots of minor cock-ups because in emergency situations most people concentrate on secundary details. But if you want to leave 'no child behind', that is what you have to do. Just think of the Chinese who evacuated a million people in 24 hours for that hurricane the day before yesterday, most of them probably on bikes and on foot.

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 14:39

Just think of the Chinese who evacuated a million people in 24 hours for that hurricane the day before yesterday, most of them probably on bikes and on foot.

You realize we also evacuated about a million in 24 hours before Katrina, over 350,000 from New Orleans? It is not how many you evacuate, but how many that are left behind that is the issue. New Orleans wouldn't have remained a large issue, except that the waters could not drain (instead filling) and access was such a large problem.

Adrian II

09-07-2005, 15:09

You realize we also evacuated about a million in 24 hours before Katrina, over 350,000 from New Orleans?The painful fact is they were not evacuated, they evacuated themselves. And I think it is not the number of people staying (or left) behind that counts; what counts is what is being done for them.

You are one of the most knowledgeable, hands-on people in this forum and I read all your stuff with great interest, but it seems you, too, have somehow been bitten by the anti-government bug. I look for the old American can-do mentality and all we see these days coming from America is a can't-do mentality. I fear that the result of this whole episode may be a further down-grading of U.S. government tasks and organisations because heck, what can the government do for us anyway?

We may never agree on what could have been accomplished in New Orleans over that fateful weekend, Red Harvest, and part of the reason is out differing outlook. You tend to think of what is possible given the circumstances on, say, Friday 26th. I think in terms of what could have been possible if people in NO and elsewhere in the U.S. had had a different view of government, its purpose and its responsibilities. Underfunding is not the solution to disaster management. Nor is big government. The solution is to get your priorities right. The Dutch failed miserably in 1953 when part of the country flooded. It took a humongous and very costly effort on the part of the entire nation to build better coastal defenses. We had to bleed socially (displacement) and financially (higer taxes) for it, but it was for the common good. I am not sure we could repeat that now. The sense of common purpose has eroded in this nation, too.

KukriKhan

09-07-2005, 15:28

The other bit that mystifies me, is the missing (or at least, unreported) grass-roots initiatives. Most of the time in these disaster stories, you hear about how some guy/group of guys sees a snag, and takes matters into their own hands, bypassing beauracracy and solving a problem. Why did that not happen here?

For example: several somebodies must have known where the keys to all those busses were. Why didn't one of them take it upon himself to get that ball rolling? I'm not pointing a finger here, just wondering why such an obvious solution evaded everyone's attention. Just bad luck? Murphey's Law writ large?

About FEMA and it's director: It looks increasingly like they/he need to do less operational stuff - where they just get in the way, and MUCH more coordinatiion stuff. Call in the military (with its easily travelled chain-of-commend) early, and provide logistic & comm support as needed.

No links...just my opinion.

Crazed Rabbit

09-07-2005, 15:59

I think we can find the truth in the difference between Mississippi and Loiusiana. Mississippi did all right, while LA did terrible. Since Bush was the President for both of them, the main difference must be in the local (where the mayor did not implement the evacuation plan) and state (where the governor wrung her hands for 24 hours before making a decision).

I think it is foolish to use this as an example as why to rely on government more. It was government (FEMA), with its miles of red tape and books of regulations and restrictions (always supported by liberals who want to regulate everything), that was the cause of a great deal of delays in the relief effort. Expanding gov't and adding more agencies to get in each other's way and empower beauracrats to impose arbitrary rules on the citizens will most certainly not help.

Crazed Rabbit

Adrian II

09-07-2005, 16:16

I think it is foolish to use this as an example as why to rely on government more.Quite. It is no use relying on a government that has no funds and no sense of purpose. The Cubans have a collective sense of purpose and a government that answers their needs in times such as these. They evacuated 1.3 million people in 24 hours before hurricane Ivan (category 5) hit in 2004. No deaths, no looting, and Fidel Castro toured the stricken areas hours after the storm had passed. Castro has a lot to answer for, but he would have long been dead and his system buried if the Cuban government wouldn't look after its people properly in such difficult circumstances. If a dictator can take care of his people this way, why can't a democratically elected government?

Crazed Rabbit

09-07-2005, 17:21

For one, a dictator can force his people to move, and move fast. The mayor of NO issued a mandatory evacuation, but didn't even use the buses to transport people out.

Crazed Rabbit

Aenlic

09-07-2005, 17:21

Well there won't be any hearings on the House of Representatives side. Not public ones anyway. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (both Republicans, if you didn't know) announced that hearings were cancelled and instead called for a "House-Senate" panel to conduct a "congressional review" of the matter. That's a far cry from public hearings. DeLay then went on to blame local authorities entirely for the problems; and he didn't stop there. He then added that Alabama and Mississippi did a much better job of responding quickly than Louisiana. Alabama and Mississippi have Republican governors. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/07/katrina.congress/index.html) So it appears that the blame is going straight for the Democrats at the local level with great care being taken to make sure Republicans at the local level are immune from criticism. How nice. So much for non-partisanship, eh? At least they still plan on having public hearings in the Senate. But considering what the House of Representatives Republicans just pulled; I won't hold my breath.

Xiahou

09-07-2005, 19:43

DeLay then went on to blame local authorities entirely for the problems; and he didn't stop there. He then added that Alabama and Mississippi did a much better job of responding quickly than Louisiana.So, did they?

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 21:22

So, did they?

Depends on who you ask, GOP political leaders or the residents. The Mississippians I've seen on TV weren't that happy. Many are just now getting food and water. Fortunately, their situation wasn't quite as dire.

You've got a different situation anyway. The devastated regions of those states are not trapped underwater in conditions that necessarily require evacuation (some yes, most, no.) If you weighed similar areas I'll bet you will find there isn't a lot of difference.

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 21:36

The other bit that mystifies me, is the missing (or at least, unreported) grass-roots initiatives.

People have to know that there is a problem before you see such an initiative. With only about a day for outside areas to respond, the call for help has to go out early. I heard buses were actually stopped from going in at some point (according to tourists who had chartered a bus out and were instead trapped.)

After the storm the Feds/State had control of the only access, and were saying that help was on the way. We, like the residents of New Orleans could not know it was a lie until too late.
I personally would have filled my truck with water and some baby formula to drive in, but we were told that such efforts were being blocked.

A public call for help in this country will have everyone and his brother lined up. That wasn't done, in fact it was discouraged. We were told, "Send money." Like that's gonna help.

The GOP will be attacking Nagin until hell freezes over, but he was the one that finally completely tore away the veil. When he went off, the whole country realized that there were only a few hundred guard troops in New Orleans, and no support evident.

Red Harvest

09-07-2005, 21:42

I think we can find the truth in the difference between Mississippi and Loiusiana. Mississippi did all right, while LA did terrible. Since Bush was the President for both of them, the main difference must be in the local (where the mayor did not implement the evacuation plan) and state (where the governor wrung her hands for 24 hours before making a decision).

Bogus. Not supported by the timelines I've seen and the changing path of the hurricane (which was originally to strike much farther East, then shifted West to New Orleans. Also ignores the truth that New Orleans faced a problem far different from the rest of the area, that of becoming a fishbowl.

The truth is that it is a national responsibility to help out our countrymen in need. This effort deserves a big fat F. Even Mississippians are getting slow response from the Feds and they too are complaining about a lack of water, etc. They too in many areas have yet to see any organized help.

Xiahou

09-08-2005, 02:22

This keeps getting better.... Remember all the news anchors in NO after the floods screaming about how people in the shelters weren't getting supplied?

Apparently, the Red Cross was positioned with food and water, but the state Homeland Security Department wouldn't allow them in.

From RedCross.org (http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html#4524)

Hurricane Katrina: Why is the Red Cross not in New Orleans?

* Acess to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

* The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.

Red Harvest

09-08-2005, 03:55

AntiochusIII

09-08-2005, 04:32

They aren't allowing pets? I'd rather take my chances in a flooded city than leave my dog and two cats to die.Many would disagree with you. However, in the end, it's a plainly stupid decision to create a position where some, like you, would not evacuate because of a restriction that no longer has any use. The possibilities of stray dogs similar to human looters right now in New Orleans because of the forced "non-pets" rules is not a necessary risk anymore. There is no urgency in terms of limited space now that the resources are mobilized and gathering. It's just a blatant administrative failure that the gov - of all levels - fails to bring them to use in a timely and effective manner.

Aenlic

09-08-2005, 04:57

Xiahou,

You forgot to mention that MEMA, Mississippi's Emergency Management Agency was having some of the same problems. There were some Mississippi politicians complaining about that.

Blanco doesn't seem to get it fully, but it is hard to tell what is controlling things now as the Feds and the state are both looking to point at each other. Bigger issue today is that Blanco is holding off on authorizing forced evacuation. Of course, Honore says that the Guard won't be doing it either. ~:rolleyes: Everyone is passing the ball to Nagin's small force to do this. Seems pretty simple to me, this is a security, fire, public health issue. All officers on the ground should be authorized to force compliance with the evacuation order, and the city should be cleared in a systematic manner.

The "no pets" rule has been a serious impediment to voluntary evacuation to those not under water. It made sense when transport was the limiting factor, but now that it is not, it is time to coax the rest out. Having a bunch of dogs about is not safe either.

Honore said his troops won't be doing it because that would be law enforcement. His troops are not just Guard units now. Since the force is mixed, he's being very careful not to violate the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the use of the federal military for law enforcement actions unless authorized by Congress (to put it in simple terms, it's actually more complicated; but...); since Congress has not authorized it, Honore is bound by law and cannot use any federal troops or any Guard troops under federal authority that haven't been released back to the state.

As for the state Homeland Security Department mentioned by Xiahou, I believe it is under the control of the feds not the state. It is the state organization of the federal department; not a separate state-run department of Homeland Security for Louisiana. ~;) I could be wrong, though. Unless Redleg says I'm wrong, in which case I'm pretty much guaranteed to be right.

And while we're on the subject of FEMA (we weren't but I'm not going to play the Bush game of trying to blame everyone but the feds and have it parroted here by the party faithful)...

It isn't just Brown who is a political appointee at FEMA with no previous emergency experience. Brown's chief of staff at FEMA (the guy who would take over if Brown were fired), Patrick Rhode, was previously an event planner for Bush's presidential and gubernatorial campaigns - no emergency management experience at all (presumably the disaster of not having enough napkins on the tables at a $1000/plate fundraiser counts as emergency management). And under him, the deputy chief of staff, Scott Morris, was a marketing director at a software company and then worked for an Austin, Texas media company where he produced TV campaign commercials for Bush's presidential campaigns. Daniel Craig, Director of the Recovery Division was previously executive director of a regional office for the Chamber of Commerce, a lobbyist for a rural electric co-op, a political advisor and a campaign fund raiser. David Maurstad, the acting Director of Mitigation was previously a regional FEMA director - since Oct., 2001. Before that he was Lt. Governor of Nebraska, a member of the Nebraska legislature, a member of the Beatrice Nebraska school board and mayor of the apparently disaster-prone small town of Beatrice, Nebraska. Kind of makes you feel all warm and tingly inside knowing that competent people were in charge of the decision-making process which tells the professionals and career employees where to go and what to do, doesn't it?

Xiahou

09-08-2005, 05:19

As for the state Homeland Security Department mentioned by Xiahou, I believe it is under the control of the feds not the state. It is the state organization of the federal department; not a separate state-run department of Homeland Security for Louisiana. ~;) I could be wrong, though. Unless Redleg says I'm wrong, in which case I'm pretty much guaranteed to be rightNope, wrong. It's totally under the control of Louisiana. http://www.loep.state.la.us/

The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (LHLS & EP); formally the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness (LOEP), was created by the Civil Act of 1950 and is under the Louisiana Military Department. In 1976 LHLS & EP via the Louisiana government reorganization, was moved to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). In 1990 LHLS & EP was transferred again to the Military Department. In 2003 the Agency name was changed to the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, reflecting the additional responsibilities to the State and her citizens.

Aenlic

09-08-2005, 05:47

As I said, I thought it possible that I was wrong.

I noticed in looking through that site, that the department is part of the Military department of Louisiana. It is run by the Louisiana Adjutant General, who is also the head of the Louisiana National Guard. He lives and works... in New Orleans out of the Jackson Barracks. I wonder how much effect that had on the C&C in New Orleans, on the Guard response? If the command and control for the Louisiana Guard was located in New Orleans, that must have created some problems.

Crazed Rabbit

09-08-2005, 06:29

An informative article on this from the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007219).

A few very relevant tidbits:

In addition to the plans, local, state and federal officials held a simulated hurricane drill 13 months ago, in which widespread flooding supposedly trapped 300,000 people inside New Orleans. The exercise simulated the evacuation of more than a million residents. The problems identified in the simulation apparently were not solved.

A year ago, as Hurricane Ivan approached, New Orleans ordered an evacuation but did not use city or school buses to help people evacuate. As a result many of the poorest citizens were unable to evacuate. Fortunately, the hurricane changed course and did not hit New Orleans, but both Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin acknowledged the need for a better evacuation plan. Again, they did not take corrective actions. In 1998, during a threat by Hurricane George, 14,000 people were sent to the Superdome and theft and vandalism were rampant due to inadequate security. Again, these problems were not corrected.

In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Gov. Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in constant contact with Mayor Nagin and FEMA. It is likely that thousands of people died because of the failure of Gov. Blanco to implement the state plan, which mentions the possible need to evacuate up to one million people. The plan clearly gives the governor the authority for declaring an emergency, sending in state resources to the disaster area and requesting necessary federal assistance.

The evacuation plan warned that "if an evacuation order is issued without the mechanisms needed to disseminate the information to the affected persons, then we face the possibility of having large numbers of people either stranded and left to the mercy of a storm, or left in an area impacted by toxic materials." That is precisely what happened because of the mayor's failure.

Mayor Nagin had to be encouraged by the governor to contact the National Hurricane Center before he finally, belatedly, issued the order for mandatory evacuation. And sadly, it apparently took a personal call from the president to urge the governor to order the mandatory evacuation.

In short, an enormous failure to implement the detailed plan which would have saved many people, and a failure to learn from the past.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

09-08-2005, 06:51

Aenlic

09-08-2005, 07:16

LOL - seems to me someone has a problem with being told they are incorrect.

:help:

Well, what do we have here? Could it be someone editing out part of a post and then making a personal attack over the edited portion?

You really need to grow up, Redleg; or seek psychiatric care before you hurt yourself. There are 12 year old posters in these forums who act more adult than you do.

Redleg

09-08-2005, 07:29

Well, what do we have here? Could it be someone editing out part of a post and then making a personal attack over the edited portion?

Actually I edit out the insult. And put that in place - which is the same type of statement as I quoted of yours.

You really need to grow up, Redleg; or seek psychiatric care before you hurt yourself. There are 12 year old posters in these forums who act more adult than you do.

Now that statement is uncalled for and shows a maturity level way beneath my own. Maybe you should take your own advice here also.

:help:

Adrian II

09-08-2005, 11:59

I think we can find the truth in the difference between Mississippi and Loiusiana. Mississippi did all right, while LA did terrible. Since Bush was the President for both of them, the main difference must be in the local (where the mayor did not implement the evacuation plan) and state (where the governor wrung her hands for 24 hours before making a decision).Mississippi and Alabama were not hit nearly as hard as Louisiana. You can see that if you study the various disaster area maps of the Gulf region. Most importantly, Mississippi had little flooding, and the flooding that took place was in coastal areas that are thinly populated and easily evacuated and controlled. And for the record, this is what Mississippi's Senator Trent Lott (R) had to say about Michael Brown on CBS:

'If he doesn't solve a couple of problems that we've got right now, he ain't going to be able to hold the job, because what I'm going to do to him ain't going to be pretty.'

Lemur

09-08-2005, 19:15

Even noted CIA agent-outer Bob Novak is suggesting Brown's removal: (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050908.shtml)

The Democrats on the ground, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, have done little to commend themselves. But that does not excuse the federal performance, in the candid opinion of many Republicans. To start with, these Republicans talk about taking FEMA back from the Homeland Security Department. They agree that heads must roll, certainly Brown's and possibly Chertoff's.

Crazed Rabbit

09-08-2005, 19:23

And for the record, this is what Mississippi's Senator Trent Lott (R) had to say about Michael Brown on CBS:

'If he doesn't solve a couple of problems that we've got right now, he ain't going to be able to hold the job, because what I'm going to do to him ain't going to be pretty.'

I agree.

I don't know about Chertoff, but he wasn't doing great.

Crazed Rabbit

yesdachi

09-08-2005, 19:29

I agree.

I don't know about Chertoff, but he wasn't doing great.

Crazed Rabbit
I agree too. Why are we so apprehensive to swing the ax on these incompetent people? This is not the first time Brown has screwed up. If I were a week late for a deadline my job would be in jeopardy.

Aenlic

09-08-2005, 19:40

As I said in the other thread, having put his arm around Brown while touring the relief effort in Alabama and having said, on camera, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!" there is not a rat's chance in hell that Bush is going to admit he made a mistake and fire the guy. Bush has never admitted any culpability for anything. The words "I made a mistake" will never issue from his mouth. Even if he wanted to say so, Rove and the rest of the Bush handlers wouldn't allow it. Bush is infallible. Since he appointed Brown; Brown must be infallible too. Bush said he's doing a good job; so he must be doing a good job. End of story. The entire disaster will be pinned on the only partially to blame Democrats in state and local government in Louisiana. If a way can be found, and problems in Republican run Alabama and Mississippi will be blamed on Democrats too. Probably something along the lines of "New Orleans sucked all of our resources away from Mississippi and Alabama" or some other nonsense.

yesdachi

09-08-2005, 20:04

When it comes to blame this is a case of “if the shoe fits” but this is a shoe that fits a lot of guilty feet. Democrats were in charge of NO but are only partly to blame but I don’t think anyone will escape some prosecution. I would still like to see some people step down from office for incompetence or some people get sacked for being incompetent.

drone

09-08-2005, 20:19

Aren't most appointments given to political flunkies? If so, then isn't making your boss look bad worse than utter incompetence at your appointed position? If Brown gets canned, the real reason will be the drop in Bush's poll values, not the dead people in New Orleans.

Since Bush has been in office, who has he fired, aside from dissenters (Powell, O'Neill)? Drink the Kool-Aid, stay the course, and your job is safe. Disagree with the administration, now that's grounds for removal!

drone

09-09-2005, 19:01

BDC

09-09-2005, 19:48

Brown now is being recalled back to DC, Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen is now in charge on-site.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/09/katrina.washington/index.html

Not sure if they think he is no longer needed there, or if they are just trying to get him out of the public eye.
Or maybe they want someone half competant in charge...

Might be being a bit hopeful though. They probably just want him out of the public eye.

Red Harvest

09-09-2005, 20:04

He "exaggerated" his resume. He claims that he was "assistant city manager" in charge of emergency response. He was actually an intern...for the city manager. ~D I've read the comments of the city manager. He had nice things to say about Brown, but said that was an intern, not an assistant city manager and that nobody reported to Brown.

Red Harvest

09-09-2005, 20:18

I believe he was selected because the Coast Guard is acknowledged by all as having done a fine job. They were on the scene early (since they prepared and staged properly.) Since they have maritime authority for rescue, I don't think they faced much in the way of artificial barriers (real or imagined.)

There is talk of appointing a "hurricane czar." I'm not opposed to it, but it is too late to do that much good. This should have been done before the hurricane struck land if it was going to be much more than cosmetic.

One problem my wife is running into is that there is no national system for tracking folks. They might be recorded going into a shelter, but when they leave it is not recorded, nor are their whereabouts. There is not a national registry so that folks can link up, find relatives etc. Mass friggin' chaos at the Federal level and it is preventing help from being provided efficiently where it is needed. There is no real national response plan for anything big like this, nor has there been any leadership emerge to really organize one.

Right now the efforts are done at very small scale. Folks that have housing drive up, ask who wants to go with them, and they leave. The local communities and churches are working with individual families to help them get into a viable state. FEMA has not given instructions on how to handle housing vouchers for those that already had them... There seems to be a lot more concern by Dubya's appointees about potential fraud, than helping victims.

drone

09-09-2005, 20:31

The more I think about it, military generals (ex or reserve) are probably the best people to put in charge at FEMA. When a disaster hits, what is the key training required to cope? Organization, logistics, and leadership, in difficult, unpredictable circumstances. Isn't that what they teach generals these days? Doesn't seem to me to be much difference between a war zone and a disaster zone. In both cases, you need food, supplies, and medical care for large numbers of people.

Red Harvest

09-09-2005, 20:34

Hurin_Rules

09-09-2005, 21:31

Anyone else think the words 'Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job' are going to enter the pantheon of Bush gaffes, right up there with 'mission accomplished' and 'bring it on'?

Red Harvest

09-09-2005, 22:46

Anyone else think the words 'Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job' are going to enter the pantheon of Bush gaffes, right up there with 'mission accomplished' and 'bring it on'?

Yep, should be right up there with those.

Cheney called the efforts so far "very impressive" or something like that. Of course, Cheney is used to committing fraud, just look at the financial shenanigans he pulled at Haliburton.

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 22:56

I think you can point the reason for Thad Allen being put in charge at the Posse Comitatus Act. The Coast Guard is already considered a law enforcment agency. Putting Allen in charge does not in any way violate the Posse Comitatus Act. He can act for the same reason that Gen. Honore couldn't. The media bungled the entire mess when making it seem by their shoddy reporting that Honore was refusing to help with the mandatory evacuation. In fact, he couldn't help. As he stated, that would be law enforcement. Under Federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act, he is prohibited from using federal troops for law enforcement purposes, except in very specific circumstances, such as an Act of Congress. Those circumstances don't apply; so Honore was legally bound to not help with anything resembling law enforcement, such as forced evacuations. Thad Allen is under no such legal restraint, being from the Coast Guard.

National Guard troops can be used but only if they are still under state authority. Once called up for federal military service, they are also restrained under that Act until officially released back to state authority. Even though Honore has state Guard troops under his command at the moment, he also has federal units from the 82nd Airborne and others.

econ21

09-10-2005, 02:31

I don't know if this is anything to do with FEMA, but does anyone else think it is odd, this decision to leave the bodies in NO uncollected for so long?

Of course, prioritise rescuing the living, but if you are passing a dead body with a team of police or National Guard, why not stop, bag it and either move it to storage or arrange for it to be moved? Was it really sensible to leave bodies on the fringes of large groups of refugees sheltering in the convention centre? To leave bodies on the roadside or floating in the water?

It seems to contrast starkly with the "leave no one behind" approach you here attributed to the US army in combat zones. Here you have arguably a less pressured situation, plus there's a clear public health issue with leaving corpses to fester in the water. And I'm not convinced there are too many to handle - I suspect the true figure of dead in NO will be a lot less than 10,000.

I was reading an article by a UK journalist contrasting (unfavourably) the rescue and relief effort after Katrina with that after the Tsunami. He said the Thai army were collecting bodies within a couple of hours of the Tsunami.

Maybe it's just another symptom of an under-resourced operation, but it just seems strange to me. To be honest, it smacks of a lack of commitment and determination by the people organising the rescue and relief work.

Xiahou

09-10-2005, 03:49

My understanding was that they didn't want to be transporting dead bodies in the same craft as rescued evacuees. I do believe, recently anyhow, they've been trying police up the bodies a little for later collection though. A grim task, no doubt....

Red Harvest

09-10-2005, 04:45

On the bodies thing. Yes, like most of the post storm efforts it shows disorganization. However, there was really no place to put them other than in a heap somewhere. With no morgues or refrigeration it was so far from the norm for handling these things (in the U.S.) that the response appears to have been a sort of paralysis.

The transport was indeed being used for live folks, and was limited enough that pets were not being moved--which creates a big problem for later.

I've always thought the "leave no bodies behind" military mantra was a bit stupid. As far as I'm concerned, if you know I'm dead, I don't want you risking your neck to grab my corpse. The last thing I want happening is somebody else getting killed or maimed for my lifeless shell. Likewise, if you're alive, I'll stick my neck out for you and do whatever I can, but once you are gone...well, I'm not Jesus so don't be expecting miracles.

There has been some very bizarre "compartmentalizing" of tasks like body collection.

This whole effort shows our system flat out doesn't work once you reach a truly large scale disaster. Scrap the whole damned thing ("national response plan") and start over. Put together a group of professionals to figure out how to handle these kind of emergencies. Rewrite the laws if needed to allow a working system. First, identify the system that is needed, THEN rewrite the laws, rather than trying to make the system fit laws that really aren't meant to handle these situations.