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

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

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?

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

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:

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:

Quote:

---

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:

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

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:

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. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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

Whose is at Fault for Katrina?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

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 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)?

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_broussa...ur_050904C.mov

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Due to his own incompetence it is probably too little, too late for Mr Brown, but... The Washington Post is running an article today 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Due to his own incompetence it is probably too little, too late for Mr Brown, but... The Washington Post is running an article today 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.

---

Yet absolutely nothing about that suggests he was in any way qualified to run the agency. Do we really need litigious attorney's running these types of agencies? This is like saying a janitor at FEMA for the past few years would be qualified. Wrong skill set! From my experience working with corporate counsel I would never expect them to get anything done quickly.

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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

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.

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)

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

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.