Bush supporters' aftermath thread

nimh wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
However the authority for the preparation, initiation, and execution of disaster and evacuation planns & response is entirely and exclusively in the hands of state and local officials.

Is that even in the least true?

As soon as a disaster is declared an Incident of National Significance, the coordination of management operations shifts to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Department's head, Chertoff declared it such an incident on 30 August.

As FreeDuck has laid out in painstaking detail HERE, Chertoff had both the authority and the information to do so three days earlier already, when Governor Blanco wrote her State of Emergency letter to President Bush.

By August 30 the failures of the State and City Governments in New Orleans to deal properly with the execution of their disaster & evacuation plans and to order and carry out the required measures - items that are their exclusive responsibility - the problem had already been created.

This is a federal republic, not a centerally controlled & authoritarian government such as that in France. The role of the Federal government is to back up state and local government, not to replace their proper functions.

The disaster in New Orleans was not the result of an external threat or attack - elements for which the Homeland Security Department was created. I would agree there is an element of absurdity in the implementation of bureaucratic solutions such as a new government department for dealing with the terrorist threat, and that this may have complicated the Federal response in this matter. However this is peripheral to the central issue here amnd that is the obvious failure of duly constituted local government to plan for, implement and carry out the emergency planning for which they were exclusively responsible and - most importantly- exclusively empowered under our constitution.

It is more than a little interesting that these issues have not been raised in Mississippi where the actions by local government were far more effective, despite the fact that the storm hit their cities with far more violence than New Orleans.

0 Replies

The storm may have been more violent elsewhere, but it was the flood that came afterwards that wiped out the NO infrastructure...

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Interesting -- British newspapers, right and left alike, consider it news that the American president sometimes goes to the bathroom. My British friends must be worse informed than I thought.

Disingenuous? The story is, the most powerful man in the world felt he had to ask an aide if he could go to the toilet, yes?

And, he can't button his shirt right, either. Someone please let him know to start at the top and line them up, THEN unbutton the top one. :wink:

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6423/bushbutton3cq.jpg

It isn't always laughable. Sometimes the realization is overwhelmingly sad.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Interesting -- British newspapers, right and left alike, consider it news that the American president sometimes goes to the bathroom. My British friends must be worse informed than I thought.

Disingenuous? The story is, the most powerful man in the world felt he had to ask an aide if he could go to the toilet, yes?

A humble man, our 43 ... the most powerful man in the world ... deferring to the protocols of the UN. You are right, of course ... he should have just stood up, strode out the room during the presentation of the President of [insert appropriate meaningless country here] and taken his leak.

0 Replies

Yeah, I agree with what dlowan has said about that one. (So there's protocol, big whoop, bigger fish to fry.)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Ity is more than a little interesting that these issues have not been raised in Mississippi where the actions by local government were far more effective, despite the fact that the storm hit their cities with far more violence than New Orleans.

But that's not true. People in Mississippi were also wondering where the cavalry was. It's just that 1) there damage wasn't as bad as NO adn 2) they were drowned out by all to reporting of NO.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/06/48hours/main821587.shtml

Quote:

More than a week after Hurricane Katrina mauled the Mississippi coast, 48 Hours correspondent Bill Whitaker reports a refrain is heard again and again in this devastated city.

"I can't find FEMA anywhere," says Jeff Miller.

Miller and his family are desperate to get out of their battered trailer. It's soaking wet, and they can't breathe the mold that's in the air.

"It's been hell," says Miller's wife, Shelly. "We tried calling FEMA. You can't get through on the phone lines."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/06/katrina/main816861.shtml

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091101660.html

Quote:

Biloxi officials said they know people in the east end are in dire straits, but the city can do little until it gets more outside assistance. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has yet to set up a disaster relief center in the city -- a FEMA spokesman, Gene Romano, said the agency is working with officials to locate a site it can use -- and has yet to send trailers or tents that the city can use to relocate residents.

0 Replies

I fully agree. Moreover the risk of flooding was well known to the local government that had permitted the city to grow into ever lower elevations on the north side towards the lake. This risk was recognized and cited in the city's emergency plans, but, as we have since learned not adequately addressed, either in the plan itself or in the subsequent actions of the city and state. Moreover the city failed to fully implement or even act on its own (inadequate) plan - despite clear and timely warnings from Federal agencies about the potential of the coming storm. In several instances the city and state actively worked to prohibit the entry of relief materials and personnel from various private and public agencies, apparently under the misguided concept that their security problem was more important at that point.

Virtually all the rescues that were accomplished in the early hours after the disaster and virtually all of the material assistance that was provided to the victims, came from Federal agencies. Some of this could well have been done more quickly, but,it is begins to appear that, under the circumstances they did rather well, as things settle down and overblown initial reports are corrected by accumulating facts. What is truly noteworthy here though is the complete collapse and paralysis of the state and local authorities in this matter, and their malevolent attempt to shift the blame to others - all in keeping with the long-established practices of corrupt state government in Louisiana.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

What is truly noteworthy here though is the complete collapse and paralysis of the state and local authorities in this matter,

Yes that's notable. In fact, the governor noted it herself when requesting aid that she expected the storm to overwhelm state and local governments' ability to repond to it.

Quote:

and their malevolent attempt to shift the blame to others - all in keeping with the long-established practices of corrupt state government in Louisiana.

I don't actually believe they were trying to shift blame. After days had passed and it was clear that they didn't have the help they asked for, they expressed their frustration.

I don't think anyone is saying that the feds are responsible for everything that happened, but they certainly didn't show up as early and in as great numbers as they could have. If this had been a terrorist attack we'd all have quickly picked up on how poor our preparation is/was. And we'd all be agreeing with George that this is "unacceptable".

0 Replies

Now Bush has promised to spend upwards of $200 billion to restore NO. With his push for a permanent tax cut, it looks our great, great, great grandchildren will be paying for Bush's folly as president.

0 Replies

I know, there are other threads about this. But since they are (nearly) dead, and all are gathered here ...

(Nevertheless: sorry, if this is 'overloading' here.)

Quote:

Posted on Fri, Sep. 16, 2005

Governor wants more than $90 million to protect Calif. levees

Associated Press

SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants more than $90 million in federal money to beef up California's aging system of levees to avoid a New Orleans-style flood disaster.

The Republican governor has joined Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, in calling for federal funding to repair and upgrade 12 key levee systems, mostly in the Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta .

"To ensure the safety of our people, the well-being of our communities and the continued vitality of our economy, we need a comprehensive and sustained plan to protect our Central Valley and delta levees," Schwarzenegger said.

He said the Sacramento region had the nation's lowest level of flood protection for a major urban area.

Flood damage from breached levees could cost billions of taxpayer dollars in losses to property, business and homes, said Resources Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman.

Experts warn that over the next 50 years, there is a high likelihood that a catastrophic event such an earthquake will damage the delta's levees enough to cause the level of destruction seen in New Orleans.

Last year, Congress authorized $90 million to improve delta levees, but the money wasn't appropriated, and the 2006 federal budget would provide just a third of that funding.

Having read this, it seems that somehow it is more federal than state business e.g. the 'levee business'.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Having read this, it seems that somehow it is more federal than state business e.g. the 'levee business'.

Walter, notice that it is the State that is asking the Feds for the money? That's because it is the State's business to shore up its levees, not the Feds. It is definitely the State's responsibility. Were it not, the Feds would just waltz in and improve the levees, or not, at their discretion.

0 Replies

I noticed that. But the money comes from the Fed?

0 Replies

CI - you forgot

September 2005: After less than two years at FEMA, Allbaugh announces he is leaving to start up a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do business in Iraq. He is now serving as a private consultant for companies seeking contracts to rebuild after hurricane Katrina, including a subsidiary of the Texas Funeralgate company that has now been awarded (thanks to Allbaugh) the contract for dealing with the bodies of those that died DESPITE their record.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I noticed that. But the money comes from the Fed?

Yeah, sometimes. The feds seem to have lots of money for pork projects.

0 Replies

It's not that I forgot about Funeralgate company, since your post is the first time I'm hearing about it - but I don't find that surprising at all! Ever hear of Halliburton and it's subsidiary with all those no-bid government contracts? LOL

0 Replies

BTW, the president said there's gonna be a watchdog department to make sure there are no hanky-panky with the contracts. ROFLMAO

0 Replies

I have some personal and direct experience in dealing with both local authorities and with FEMA following natural disasters - the first in the response to the Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco in 1989; the second in the response to a hillside fire in Oakland Ca. in 1992 that destroyed about 2000 hillside homes just weeks before the rainy season began threatening the city with massive hillside mudslides; and the last following the Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles a few years later. In each I was involved in direct response and reconstruction contracts with both FEMA and Local government agencies. In the case of the Oakland fire I was the Program Manager for the Oakland city govermnment's program for debris removal, property protection and hillside stabilization. In the others business groups I managed performed contract services for city and state agencys for the debris removal and reconstruction effort.

All of these activities involved the governmental functions of land use and regulation, public safety and the operation & reconstruction of public highways and roads. Each of these functions are the exclusive domain of local government, not the Federal government. FEMA had no statutory authority to direct any of these activities, rather their role was to provide Federal assistance and money to local agencies in carrying them out. In my experiences FEMA carried out its responsibilities fairly well. However the real leadership and management of the recovery efforts was necessarily in the hands of local governments (which in these instances was done impressively well by the ccities of Oakland and Los Angeles. CALTRANS, the state highway agency, wasn't so good).

I believe the missing element in the New Orleans disaster was the competent leadership and management of local government. Under our constitution there is no Federal substitute for that. We get the kind of government we elect. The unfortunate people of New Orleans didn't do very well in that area.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
I noticed that. But the money comes from the Fed?

Yeah, sometimes. The feds seem to have lots of money for pork projects.

So did New Orleans. Back in 2001 they were considering a new retractable roof for the Superdome at $100 million, yet their police department only had 3 rescue boats -- two of which weren't operable.

Makes one wonder.

0 Replies

No offense, but the FEMA of the late 80s and early 90s is not the FEMA of today. And you are right that response to disasters is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments. Except when the disaster is of such a magnitude that it overwhelms their ability to respond to it. According to our National Response Plan, that is when the feds are supposed to coordinate the relief effort.

Quote:

We get the kind of government we elect. The unfortunate people of New Orleans didn't doi very well in that area.

The unfortunate people of the USA didn't do very well either, apparently.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know