View Full Version : Katrina Scenario Did not Exist???
Red Harvest
09-04-2005, 01:51
Another beauty from Dept. of Homeland Security: Scenario Didn't Exist (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/index.html)
Now Chertoff claims that the scenario didn't exist. WHAT??? That is what we were expecting as early as Saturday, two days before the storm struck the coast. Here is an idea: get some people in Homeland Security that have some concept of the potential dangers in the real world! Wow! Isn't that novel? These morons couldn't plan their way out of a paper bag. :whip:
They claim they've evacuated 42,000 people as of this morning...so in 5 days they've gotten out the equivalent of almost 10% of the pre-Katrina population--most of that in the past 24 hours. I am NOT impressed. And people criticize New Orleans' evacuation?
sharrukin
09-04-2005, 02:03
The scenario that is currently being put into effect is the CYA Scenario and they are well versed in that one.
Big King Sanctaphrax
09-04-2005, 02:13
Hang on-this guy is defending the emergency planners-by saying 'We didn't plan for this'?
Er...I thought New Orleans had been talking about this kind of 'Worst case scenario' for years.
Another beauty from Dept. of Homeland Security: Scenario Didn't Exist (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/index.html)
Now Chertoff claims that the scenario didn't exist. WHAT??? That is what we were expecting as early as Saturday, two days before the storm struck the coast. Here is an idea: get some people in Homeland Security that have some concept of the potential dangers in the real world! Wow! Isn't that novel? These morons couldn't plan their way out of a paper bag. :whip:
Well he has to provide cover for his department and the agency which is suppose to answer to him.
Politians can never admit thier mistakes - however it would best serve the nation if stupid excuses were not offered - especially easy ones to disprove.
It would serve the nation best if The Mayor of New Orleans, The Governor of Louisana, and yes even the President all just stated that the Hurrican caught the city in a state of complaincany (SP) the state in the midst of an inablity to manage a major crisis within its area of control, and for President Bush to admit that Homeland Security and FEMA heads are talking out of thier rear-ends.
They claim they've evacuated 42,000 people as of this morning...so in 5 days they've gotten out the equivalent of almost 10% of the pre-Katrina population--most of that in the past 24 hours. I am NOT impressed. And people criticize New Orleans' evacuation?
Don't be so hard on the attempt - given that the city, the state, and the nation all were caught with their pants around their ankles - getting to them in 4 days show some hard work is being done.
Like I have stated in an earlier thread - I was involved in a FEMA mission to San Antonio - a realitive minor thing - where the Military Base (Ft Sam Houston) was being flooded along with the city. It took the Federal System under FEMA 3 days to organize a response.
ShadesPanther
09-04-2005, 03:05
It would serve the nation best if The Mayor of New Orleans, The Governor of Louisana, and yes even the President all just stated that the Hurrican caught the city in a state of complaincany (SP) the state in the midst of an inablity to manage a major crisis within its area of control, and for President Bush to admit that Homeland Security and FEMA heads are talking out of thier rear-ends.
Of course, pigs might fly ~;p
It does sound silly but politicans are never wrong, ever. ~;)
Strike For The South
09-04-2005, 03:06
This whole thing has pissed me off :furious3:
PanzerJaeger
09-04-2005, 03:27
Doesnt this belong in the other Bush-bashing thread? Do we really need another one?
Doesnt this belong in the other Bush-bashing thread? Do we really need another one?
So any thread that questions any policy by any Executive department is a Bush-bashing thread? I guess we'll have to restrict the Backroom to religion.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-04-2005, 03:37
Do any of you think things would have been different under Kerry. This is ridiculous. The only difference is I and Panzer would be calling for Kerrys head while you would be taking our position.
Gawain, nasty case of dualism you've got there. I'd recommend an ointment and bed rest, should clear it right up.
AntiochusIII
09-04-2005, 04:01
So any thread that questions any policy by any Executive department is a Bush-bashing thread? I guess we'll have to restrict the Backroom to religion.I thought any religion-bashing is even worse than Bush-bashing, in the opinions of some of the patrons on this board? After all, if Bush can't be touched, how about Him?
Gawain of Orkeny
09-04-2005, 04:09
Gawain, nasty case of dualism you've got there. I'd recommend an ointment and bed rest, should clear it right up.
So you think it would have been all different with Kerry in there? At least I admit Im partisan. The federal government is a huge bueracracy and this was a huge disaster. It takes a while to get the ball rolling. Once order had been restored things are moving forward at a rapid rate now. It doesnt matter who the president was things would be the same. Hopefully this will wake everyone up and they will finally get their act toghether. How is it we can depoly the Marines or the 82nd airborne anywhere in the world in a matter of hours but we cant get them into New Orleans for days?
So you think it would have been all different with Kerry in there?
So let me get this straight -- since Kerry was just another politician, and he's the guy who stood for election against Bush a year ago, we should refrain from asking what the hell went wrong with the disaster response after the hurricane, since it would have been similar under Kerry? Am I hearing you right, G?
This should be married to your "Clinton appointed incompetents, too" post, where you (sort of) defended the Amazing Michael Brown by stating that every president appoints idiots, and made into its own thread. Suggested title: Our President Maintains a Bipartisan Tradition of Incompetence, So Stop Saying Mean Things.
Actually I'm surprised the Clinton-haters haven't managed to pin the entire fiasco in New Orleans on Clinton in some way. I don't hate him so much as I just mildly dislike the bozo for being a Republican in a Democrat suit and being smart enough to focus on the right issues but too stupid to keep his pants zipped. Bush is a step down. When are we going to have a decent president? I mean, come on already! I'm running out of derogatory nicknames for these guys. No one is perfect; but this is ridiculous. At the rate we're digging down into the effluvium at the bottom of the gene pool for candidates, we're going to end up electing one of the guys doing the neanderthals on the Geico commercials as the lesser of two evils!
Red Harvest
09-04-2005, 06:06
Do any of you think things would have been different under Kerry. This is ridiculous. The only difference is I and Panzer would be calling for Kerrys head while you would be taking our position.
Yes, actually I do. He certainly couldn't have done worse picking a head for FEMA. At worst he could have done just as poorly. And given Dubya's lack of initiative in this disaster, I doubt Kerry could have been slower to respond.
I would not defend any President over such a weak response. That is where we differ.
Zalmoxis
09-04-2005, 07:01
Meatwads "Enough with the Katrina Threads" thread got me thinking, can anybody pull out the 9/11 threads from the archives for me?
Del Arroyo
09-04-2005, 07:34
Do any of you think things would have been different under Kerry. This is ridiculous. The only difference is I and Panzer would be calling for Kerrys head while you would be taking our position.
Irrelevant. If a nation is to succeed, leaders must be judged based on competent examples and not just on likely alternatives. Just because nations like Mexico and Nicaragua have few good alternatives to current political leadership doesn't make them any less disfunctional or sucky. Do you support the US turning into Nicaragua, Gawain? Then get your morals straight and stick with high standards.
If a nation lacks good leadership, the only way through it is outrage and positive action. If you adjust your standards you are part of the problem.
DA
PanzerJaeger
09-04-2005, 07:44
If a nation lacks good leadership, the only way through it is outrage and positive action. If you adjust your standards you are part of the problem.
That lack of good leadership is purely subjective on your part.
The idea that Bush isn't to blame because theoretically had Kerry been elected then it would have all happened anyhow is possibly the most preposterous position I have seen advanced on these boards. And that is coming from a fine pedigree of preposterous positions.
Whatever happened to the 'Buck stops here'?
Geoffrey S
09-04-2005, 11:28
A lot was screwed up and didn't need to be. Why can't people just accept that and get on with things, and leave recriminations for later? Constant criticism is hardly going to help the current situation.
Red Harvest
09-04-2005, 16:30
If a nation lacks good leadership, the only way through it is outrage and positive action. If you adjust your standards you are part of the problem.
Exactly.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-04-2005, 16:43
Yes, actually I do. He certainly couldn't have done worse picking a head for FEMA. At worst he could have done just as poorly. And given Dubya's lack of initiative in this disaster, I doubt Kerry could have been slower to respond.
You have absolutly nothing to back this up other than your partisanship. Kerry could have done worse. Im giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he wouldnt have.
Do you support the US turning into Nicaragua, Gawain? Then get your morals straight and stick with high standards.
If you think this compares with the US turning into Nicaragua I suggest you get your brain straight. Again its the buracracy and not a lack of iniative that causes these problems. IMO the biggest mistake he made was going down there. Do you realise how much it costs and how many resources that could have been used to help people were diverted so he could go there? You peole just hate te man and nothing he could do would have satisfied you. I can understand as I feel the sameway about Clinton. The difference is Im man enough to admit it.
Red Harvest
09-04-2005, 17:10
You have absolutly nothing to back this up other than your partisanship. Kerry could have done worse. Im giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he wouldnt have.
You pose a purely speculative hypothetical, then say "you have absolutely nothing to back this up" when someone calls your bluff. LOL. ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: That's rich, Gawain! What in the world could back up anything either way on this? You pose a hypothetical, then demand some sort of solid evidence. ~:confused: (Just a second, I'm going to have to step into an alternate universe. I'll be right back with the evidence in a minute...)
You thought it would be cute to slam Kerry with your partisanship hanging out (zip your fly next time.) When I considered it, it only took me a few seconds to conclude that most likely he would have done a better job...or Gore...or McCain...possibly even Peewee Herman. Why, because I'm looking at waht did happen.
Now, moving away from the speculative, we can look at what has happened. We can judge Dubya's response, and his appointees by their own actions and what HAS and has NOT happened.
And like the legendary (and entirely untrue image) of Nero's fiddle playing while Rome burned, Bush's guitar playing on vacation while New Orleans flooded and people died is going to come back to haunt him. It's an unfair image, true; but that isn't going to matter. If one good thing comes out of all this, then maybe it will be people waking up from their media-induced stupor and taking a good hard look at Bush & Co., or as I like to call them Goober and the Bushistas.
KafirChobee
09-06-2005, 23:35
Just for giggles:
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/090105.asp
http://www.whitehouse.org/ask/ask.asp
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/poster/competent-governance.asp
The last one is for you, Aenlic. It fits, don't you think? Oops, just look to the right on the first http.
After Camille, everyone knew that it was just a matter of time for New Orleans to get its just due from Mother Nature. It was ignored, and/or the financial efforts to do something slashed by nearly every president. It happened because it could.
That the relief effort was initially such a cluster f'k is not amazing at all. Not when one looks at the attitudes of those incharge of the rescue. :balloon2:
Heh, KafirChobee, I've been struggling for a week now not to use the descriptive that starts with cluster; and here you go and post a link to it!
I like the links.
There's a similar-minded cartoon in the Guardian too, by Steve Bell:
Bushazzar's Feast (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1563596,00.html)
Red Harvest
09-07-2005, 03:57
Heh, KafirChobee, I've been struggling for a week now not to use the descriptive that starts with cluster; and here you go and post a link to it!
Sometimes a single word defines something so much better than anything else--it just so happens that this one is profane. Unfortunate, because I can't think of anything that is so succinct and direct that adequately describes the response to this disaster. In fact, maybe we should call the investigation the "Cluster**** Commission." :bigcry:
In fact, maybe we should call the investigation the "Cluster**** Commission." :bigcry:
Bet you a beer that the Commission itself becomes a "cluster***" if one is held.
Red Harvest
09-07-2005, 04:17
Bet you a beer that the Commission itself becomes a "cluster***" if one is held.
To some degree. It really depends on the makeup of it. If it is just partisan loaded, then it will be a mess. If it is loaded with heavy hitters that have proven records in various areas of crisis management, logistics, and relevant legal issues, then it could do very good work.
I think the composition comes down to how loud the people are yelling that they want things fixed. The security issues are major, the embarassment to the nation is major, and the suffering is extensive. I don't think partisanship will be the main driver, as both sides will be afraid of incurring major wrath if they sidetrack this. The Democrats simply can't afford it and I've seen a number of prominent Republicans break ranks with the Administration over this. I suspect it is in the GOP interest to facilitate an actual investigation and fix, rather than a cover up--since the Administration will be a lame duck, and because the faults can be blamed on a system (rightly for the most part.) I think other efforts of damage control would be counterproductive.
Probably wishful thinking on my part.
To some degree. It really depends on the makeup of it. If it is just partisan loaded, then it will be a mess. If it is loaded with heavy hitters that have proven records in various areas of crisis management, logistics, and relevant legal issues, then it could do very good work.
I think the composition comes down to how loud the people are yelling that they want things fixed. The security issues are major, the embarassment to the nation is major, and the suffering is extensive. I don't think partisanship will be the main driver, as both sides will be afraid of incurring major wrath if they sidetrack this. The Democrats simply can't afford it and I've seen a number of prominent Republicans break ranks with the Administration over this. I suspect it is in the GOP interest to facilitate an actual investigation and fix, rather than a cover up--since the Administration will be a lame duck, and because the faults can be blamed on a system (rightly for the most part.) I think other efforts of damage control would be counterproductive.
Probably wishful thinking on my part.
I think you have basically got it correct - if the Adminstration does not facilitate an actual invetigation into what failed in the system and have a bi-partisan commission loaded with the best minds on how best manage diaster planning, management, and recovery - I think the President will have a lame duck session of two years. Failing to adequately address this area of national concern will also split the Republican Party much like the Democrates are now - with the moderates seperating theirselves from the more right wing members.
Speaking of wishful thinking.
The benefit from a Presidentual Failure to address this issue could actually result in a vaible third party coming from moderates of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
The benefit from a Presidentual Failure to address this issue could actually result in a vaible third party coming from moderates of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Not at all keen to see a public failure of the President, but the thought of a viable moderate party makes sigh like a lovelorn schoolboy ...
Bet you a beer that the Commission itself becomes a "cluster***" if one is held.
Agreed. If it isn't done independently, and Congress gets their dirty little hands on it as we get down to the year before the next elections, it'll be a massive waste of everyone's time.
And I wouldn't be averse to a viable 3rd party. Things need some serious shaking up at this point. The good ol' boys in both parties need their chains jerked until they wake up.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.