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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongamato

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.

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.

I will respond to this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

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.

The toll on local officials: New Orleans Officers stressed

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

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. 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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

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.

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....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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongamato

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

If only people had heeded FEMA's rap song ...

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.

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?

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.

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.