Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I know, it's of no interest, doesn't matter at all and "who cares?", but nevertheless:

Quote:
Most Europeans dislike Bush's foreign policies

LOL. You're right, Walter. Couldn't get past the title.

0 Replies

Condoleezza Rice, Sunday, at the Pilgrim Rest AME Zion church outside Mobile: "There are some things the president can do; there are some things the government can do, but God can do all things. I want you to know he's never late. He's always on time."

0 Replies

Foxfrye, I suggest you read it again. Enough said.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Condoleezza Rice, Sunday, at the Pilgrim Rest AME Zion church outside Mobile: "There are some things the president can do; there are some things the government can do, but God can do all things. I want you to know he's never late. He's always on time."

Forgot the Source Embarrassed

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

But what's your point?

I see a clear difference in emphasis between your conclusion that "disaster relief is primarily a state issue, and any federal response is secondary" and Collins' explicit indictment of the response of all levels of government as "woefully inadequate".

The former assertion at least seems to imply that the federal government's responsibility in question isn't or shouldn't be the primary matter of discussion here in the first place, whereas the latter makes no distinction and holds up all levels of government as both responsible and revealed as having failed.

Now the two assertions may well not be mutually exclusive; its a question of choosing an emphasis more than anything else. I for one applaud this Republican Senator for not focusing on a scramble to roll down blame to anyone but Bush's administration, and just honestly face the responsibility of failure head on.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

How many terrorists attacks are likely to take out all coastal cities in a three-state wide swath?

According to Brandon, a terrorist attack of that scope may well take place any time now.

0 Replies

Mysteryman wrote:

When someplace is declared a federal disaster area,what that does is allow for federal aid to the affected area,in the terms of mostly financial aid.

Foxfyre wrote:

Did you read the documents posted, Revel? These are asking for after-the-fact storm clean up and money.

Foxfyre and Mysteryman seem to be telling us that all FEMA does is set up an office after it's all over and start giving out loans for people to rebuild.

This is simply untrue.

Take a look at this press release from FEMA for Florida from a year ago-before Hurricane Frances hit. This doesn't sound to me like after-storm clean up and money.

FEMA, in it's press release, wrote:

*A first shipment of 30,000 tarps is en route to Atlanta, Ga., to be pre-staged for delivery to areas affected by Frances once the storm has cleared.

*FEMA is working to provider 10 trailers of generators at the request of Florida that will be used to provide power to critical facilities affected by the hurricane. Generators will be stagedpre-positioned, and are currently en route to Atlanta and Tampa.

*FEMA's Mobile Emergency Response Services (MERS) communications staff and equipment are available to provide telephone, radio and video links in support of response and recovery efforts. About 100 MERS personnel and about 75 vehicles - including Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOCs) equipped vehicles and Mobile Radio Vans (MRVs) to provide radio capability have been assigned to support Hurricane Frances response and recovery operations.

Source.

FEMA indeed is set up to rescue people and get them food, water and medical supplies. And the Lousiana Governor did ask for the help before the hurricane. And I am not so sure her permission was even necessary before FEMA could prepare for and commence rescue operations anyway.

Looks like the spin to save Bush's political butt is in high gear.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
But what's your point?

I see a clear difference in emphasis between your conclusion that "disaster relief is primarily a state issue, and any federal response is secondary" and Collins' explicit indictment of the response of all levels of government as "woefully inadequate".

The former assertion at least seems to imply that the federal government's responsibility in question isn't or shouldn't be the primary matter of discussion here in the first place, whereas the latter makes no distinction and holds up all levels of government as both responsible and revealed as having failed.

Now the two assertions may well not be mutually exclusive; its a question of choosing an emphasis more than anything else. I for one applaud this Republican Senator for not focusing on a scramble to roll down blame to anyone but Bush's administration, and just honestly face the responsibility of failure head on.

I don't see it as a matter of emphasis. I believe my conclusion is correct: "disaster relief is primarily a state issue, and any federal response is secondary." Do you disagree with that statement?

As far as the implication that the role of the federal government shouldn't be a "primary matter of discussion," I disagree with that as well. It certainly should be a primary matter of discussion as far as the workings of the interface with state/local governments. It was not a well-oiled machine, and we ought to find out why.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

It was not a well-oiled machine, and we ought to find out why.

Six WaPo reporters did an in-depth feature on what all went wrong at which level, which should be a pretty good place to start. Whole article is here; excerpts in this post.

Ticomaya wrote:

I don't see it as a matter of emphasis. I believe my conclusion is correct: "disaster relief is primarily a state issue, and any federal response is secondary." Do you disagree with that statement?

From what I gather from, for example, that article, FEMA played a pro-active role in previous disasters and had the authorities to go much further than it now did.

0 Replies

timber wrote:

In July, it seems plans were being made to notify "The Poor of New Orleans" that the buses weren't gonna be runnin':

I read that article and it doesn't say the buses weren't going to be running. It says that there aren't enough buses. I'd always assumed that they didn't have buses running to take people out but in reality maybe they did have buses but 1) there weren't enough and 2) they were taking people to shelters and not completely out of the area.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I don't see it as a matter of emphasis. I believe my conclusion is correct: "disaster relief is primarily a state issue, and any federal response is secondary." Do you disagree with that statement?

I've just gotten more confused, or perhaps it's sceptical. That's because of something Walter posted in the other thread. This, namely:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Several paper report that

Quote:
On Aug. 26, Louisiana's governor signed a declaration of a state of emergency. In response, on Aug. 27, Bush declared officially a state of emergency in Louisiana and his press office announced: The president's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster-relief efforts ... to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures ... to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe ..."

source here: Red Bluff Daily News

And according to the Financial Times, "n the case of Katrina, Louisiana had the foresight to ask the president for a disaster declaration even before the hurricane hit ground. This was signed on August 27, at which time federal resources should have been deployed en masse."

Doesn't this mean that at least from Aug 27 onward, it was primarily the FEMA's / DHS's responsibility "to coordinate all disaster-relief efforts"?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I don't see it as a matter of emphasis. I believe my conclusion is correct: "disaster relief is primarily a state issue, and any federal response is secondary." Do you disagree with that statement?

I've just gotten more confused, or perhaps it's sceptical. That's because of something Walter posted in the other thread. This, namely:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Several paper report that

Quote:
On Aug. 26, Louisiana's governor signed a declaration of a state of emergency. In response, on Aug. 27, Bush declared officially a state of emergency in Louisiana and his press office announced: The president's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster-relief efforts ... to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures ... to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe ..."

source here: Red Bluff Daily News

And according to the Financial Times, "n the case of Katrina, Louisiana had the foresight to ask the president for a disaster declaration even before the hurricane hit ground. This was signed on August 27, at which time federal resources should have been deployed en masse."

Doesn't this mean that at least from Aug 27 onward, it was primarily the FEMA's / DHS's responsibility "to coordinate all disaster-relief efforts"?

No, FEMA was authorized, but only when and subject to the Governor making a request for the aid. The President declared an emergency before the hurricane hit, which has happened in the past, and it allows for the prepositioning of supplies and equipment to support and assist the local response. This does not allow the feds to take over without authorization from the Governor.

State and local disaster relief is first and foremost the responsibility of the affected State. From the Washington Post:

Quote:

Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law.

...

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said.

Read the rest of the article ... HERE.

Here is an excerpt from the President's declaration of emergency on 8/27:

Quote:

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3212-EM), dated August 27, 2005, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 27, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Manage¬ment Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 27, 2005, the President declared an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Louisiana, resulting from Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206 (Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana. You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act to save lives, protect public health and safety, and property or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal assistance, at 75 percent Federal funding. This assistance excludes regular time costs for subgrantees' regular employees. In addition, you are authorized to provide such other forms of assistance under Title V of the Stafford Act as you may deem appropriate. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

SOURCE

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In Mississippi and Alabama, in many ways suffering much worse devastation than that in New Orleans, are doing their jobs and handling the situation with backup by FEMA. Louisiana didn't do their job, nor did they ask or allow the Federal government to do it for them until the situation was already past critical.

There is no worse devastation than in New Orleans right now. Mississippi lost 200 people so far, Alabama 2. New Orleans is flooded waist deep and has lost, at latest estimate, several thousand. Cleanup can't even begin and it is still unsafe for human occupancy. There's just no comparison.

0 Replies

You Bush supporters' are like a F'ed up disfunctional family.In denial and making excuses for your loser sons failure.

0 Replies

Freeduck writes

Quote:

There is no worse devastation than in New Orleans right now. Mississippi lost 200 people so far, Alabama 2. New Orleans is flooded waist deep and has lost, at latest estimate, several thousand. Cleanup can't even begin and it is still unsafe for human occupancy. There's just no comparison.

Don't you wonder though how many fewer dead there would have been had the governor of LA and mayor of NO followed through on their own emergency plans or if they had ordered a mandatory evacuation and offered transportation to get people out of harm's way or if they had allowed the President to federalize the relief effort? The two states that did all that seem to have minimized their losses. And I think the residents of Gulfport that essentially no longer exists would question whether their devastation was less than anybody elses.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Don't you wonder though how many fewer dead there would have been had the governor of LA and mayor of NO followed through on their own emergency plans or if they had ordered a mandatory evacuation and offered transportation to get people out of harm's way or if they had allowed the President to federalize the relief effort?

You mean, the levees hadn't broken than?

0 Replies

Tico, you keep maintaining that without specific authorization from the governor, FEMA was helpless and could only stand by. As "evidence", you keep quoting an article that the Governor failed to turn ALL control and ALL rescue efforts over to the Federal government.

Perhaps she balked at turning over control of the whole city to the Feds, but I see no evidence she balked at FEMA coming in and doing their rescue function, which FEMA did and bragged about in Florida in 2004.

Here is an excerpt from your own quote:

FEMA management wrote:

You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act to save lives, protect public health and safety, and property or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas.

Now, please show me anything in that quote that says "Of course, we can't do any of things until we receive specific instructions from the Governor to go ahead, which we have not received".

I would like two things:

A) proof that a specific request is necessary from the Governor, separate from requesting a state of emergency, for FEMA to move;

and

B) proof that such request was not made.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Don't you wonder though how many fewer dead there would have been had the governor of LA and mayor of NO followed through on their own emergency plans or if they had ordered a mandatory evacuation and offered transportation to get people out of harm's way or if they had allowed the President to federalize the relief effort? The two states that did all that seem to have minimized their losses. And I think the residents of Gulfport that essentially no longer exists would question whether their devastation was less than anybody elses.

I don't really know. For one, I don't know if the LA and NO evacuation plans were followed or not. They were obviously ineffective if they were, but timber posted an article earlier that gave some indication that they knew they would be. I also don't know if the other two states DID allow the president to federalize the relief effort, whatever that means in its current incarnation.

I know from the documents that New Orleans was a unique case, that federal assistance was asked for and states of emergency were declared and evacuations were ordered and carried out. I don't know what extra red tape they would have had to cut to get something resembling adequate help. Obviously the city and the surrounding areas were and are unable to help themselves. I don't know why it seems logical to so many people to suggest that the feds needed some extra levels of permission to do their job. Does the fire department stand outside of a burning building and call for the trapped owners to say the magic word before they can turn on the hoses?

I've said elsewhere that the evacuation efforts were flawed at best. But I've never been to New Orleans, I don't know how many people live there, I don't know what their resources are, so I have to assume that they did the best they could do. But when the storm was over there were no trucks of supplies, food, and water waiting.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Does the fire department stand outside of a burning building and call for the trapped owners to say the magic word before they can turn on the hoses?

Obviously it is so, as I've learnt now.

0 Replies

To KW: The eye of the hurricane and the brunt of the damage hit Mississippi and Alabama. In the initial aftermath of the storm, both the Mayor of NO and the governor of LA issued statements of relief: they had dodged the bullet again. It wasn't until the levee broke--a levee that had been upgraded and nobody expected to break by the way--that the more serious emergency developed.

It seems obvious to me that it would be a stretch to say that FEMA was remiss in focusing their greater attention to the more hurricane ravaged states and thus they were slower than usual getting to the unfolding disaster in New Orleans. Meanwhile, the local and state authorities did little to mitigate their losses.

Of course FEMA could have done better. FEMA can always do better. FEMA was hugely criticized for slow and ineffective response after Andrew even though that again was in part due to slow action on the part of the local Florida government. There almost certainly have been bureaucratic screw ups and inefficiencies this time too. I don't see anybody saying that the overall effort could not be substantially improved.

My primary objection is to those who are trying to politicize this and score points from the disaster. I think that is misdirected and wrong. I prefer to encourage people to be a part of the solution instead of peanut gallery critics.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know