On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 01:03:13 -0600, "Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Frank Gilliland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part: >> I don't. If people refuse to acknowledge dire circumstances that's >> their problem. Much like you refuse to acknowledge that the warnings >> did indeed have an effect, as the mass evacuation have proved. The >> majority of people who didn't leave simply didn't have the means or >> the strength, or had a responsibility to those that remained (hospital >> workers, police, fire, etc.). >> >> The question of the hour is why there was no disaster plan to evacuate >> those people. And if the plan was to house them in the dome and other >> shelters, why there was no plan to provide for the survivors. Or, if >> there -was- a plan, why it didn't work. Those are all questions that >> will be answered in the coming months. But clearly something went >> terribly wrong, and it -wasn't- because they didn't have enough >> warning (additional proof of which you graciously provided above). > >No disaster plan to evacuate people who didn't have the means to leave? >Take a look at: "http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26";. >About halfway down is "PART 2: EVACUATION" and a few paragraphs later is >"II. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS". The ninth paragraph under that heading reads: > >The City of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and >safely evacuate threatened areas. Those evacuated will be directed to >temporary sheltering and feeding facilities as needed. When specific routes >of progress are required, evacuees will be directed to those routes. Special >arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves >or who require specific life saving assistance. Additional personnel will be >recruited to assist in evacuation procedures as needed. Then the question is why the plan didn't work, just as I stated above. >> >Combine this with the state government declaring states of emergencies >> >over minor hurricanes and you have a recipe for people staying home. >> >This latter cause is due largely to a desire to get federal funding. >> >Declaring the SoE is *primarily* about federal funds. >> >> >> What a load of horse-hooey! When Blanco made the request for a federal >> emergency declaration she only asked for $9 million and the use of >> some federal resources. > >And, she is right in there blaming Bush for not acting more promptly while >not giving Bush the authority to act and thereby becoming the bottleneck in >getting aid in there. Yes, you are correct that she DID issue an emergency >declaration. However, that apparently did not allow sufficient leeway for >Bush to move in some of the ways that he needed to. For instance, I happen >to know that a governor has to agree to allow NG troops from other states to >operate in their state. Also, similar permission is required for >active-duty troops to operate in a state. I still don't know exactly what >Bush was wanting from Blanco, but she apparently (yes, the info is 3rd-hand) >wanted up to 24 hours to make her decision--whether she took that long I >still don't know. > >http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/5/234033.shtml Didn't we talk about the credibility of biased news sources? It's really easy to take a few quotes, add a few carefully worded phrases, and have it come out sounding totally different than the way it was intended. >I also went and read the state and federal disaster declarations you pointed >to. > >http://gov.louisiana.gov/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976 > >http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html > >They specifically authorized FEMA and some welfare agencies to do stuff. >(Department of Social Services, Department of Health and Hospitals, Office >of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness--but only specifically for >providing generators and support staff.) The anticipated needs were grossly underestimated by the governor. It's clear that she shares some blame for this fiasco. BTW, I read somewhere (I don't remember where so this is unverified) that Bush wanted LA to pay for half the reconstruction costs, where typically the state pays only a fourth. If true, that may have been one of the sticking points. I'll see if I can find the source. >The state declaration is an embarrassment. It looks like a template >document where someone didn't entirely replace the "hints" from the template >with the relevant facts. There is: > >(a) List any reasons State and local government cannot perform or contract >for performance, (if applicable). > >(b) Specify the type of assistance requested. > >Lack of proofreading aside, is there anything in there that would allow a >Nationalized Guard unit to operate in the State of Louisiana? No. I've heard of the National Guard, if that's what you are referring to. But the gov doesn't need permission from the president to activate the Louisiana National Guard. Nor does she need a declaration of a SoE. > Is there >anything in there that would allow a Guard unit from another state to >operate in LA? No. Nor is there anything -preventing- her from asking for and allowing out-of-state Guard units from operating in the state. > Is there anything in there that would allow active-duty >military to operate in Louisiana (other than the arrangements for the normal >operations on or between in-state military bases that are in effect during >normal times)? No. Nor is there anything preventing such activities. > Is there anything in there that would allow for unified >command and control? No. Nor is there anything preventing such activities. > It was a pro-forma emergency declaration to get >some extra welfare agency money into the state for the "pore an' starvin'", ......oh brother....... >and when the fecal matter hit the circular ventilation device, she wasn't >willing to open things up any more. Limbaugh's show today, included a clip >of her excusing herself because Bush had "presented something so complicated >that I needed more time to think about it." So? She might be a little slow, but at least she's honest about it. She has publically admitted that she was overwhelmed at some point. I'm sure that would have happened to a lot of people in her position. And you seem to be somewhat intelligent -- why do you even bother watching that pompous hypocrite? >While the details (no emergency decree) may not have been entirely correct, >the main thrust of the story is emerging as correct: Gov. Blanco was the >bottleneck in aid getting to the people who needed it. Whether that was due >to incompetence, lack of trust of someone from another party, or outright >evil intentions remains to be seen. True, the facts are not all in yet. But from what I see, it appears that the "bottleneck", as you call it, occurred -- and is still occuring -- with FEMA. The governor and the Shrub may have been negligent in not forseeing the potential devastation, but at least Blanco isn't trying to cover up her incompetence by putting on a charade for the cameras. BTW, do you know what Bush was doing while the storm was hitting the city? Taking guitar lessons and attending McCain's birthday party. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
