Greetings, Frank! Frank Gilliland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part: > >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";. > > Then the question is why the plan didn't work, just as I stated above.
It appears that it didn't "work" because it wasn't "implemented." > >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. Uhm. You mean like CBS, of forged documents fame? And was it NBC who got caught putting squibs (explosives) in the gas tanks of so-called "exploding GM pickups"? And CNN that admitted they were not reporting the real news in Saddam's Iraq so they wouldn't get kicked out of Baghdad? Are those what you would consider trustworthy sources? > >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. That's forgivable. Not writing a new SOE declaration when the conditions change is not. And while the initial report claimed there had been NO SOE declaration, it appears that the "Senior Administration Official" and/or the reporter were talking about a second one that was not forthcoming and somewhere it was confused by thinking there had not been one at all. > 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. You corrected this in another post. Thanks for the honesty. > >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. So. If the LA NG was not sufficient to the task, then it's Bush's fault that the NG from the other states weren't hot on their heels? > > 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. Did she? > > 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. Only a rather obscure little "Posse Comitatus" Act that specifically does just that--in the absence of a request from the governor. > > Is there anything in there that would allow for unified > >command and control? No. > > Nor is there anything preventing such activities. Except the afore-mentioned "Posse Comitatus" Act that requires the governor's permission for the federal government to send troops in. > >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. Does that excuse her for being the bottleneck in getting aid to the citizens of her state? > And you seem to be somewhat intelligent -- why do you even bother > watching that pompous hypocrite? I don't watch him. He's not on TV anymore. I listen to him because he's entertaining (and the pomposity is part of the shtick) and informative. I find out about stuff that I otherwise wouldn't (and hear clips that I otherwise wouldn't) and can do something else at the same time. I'm not sure where the "hypocrite" charge comes from. But I suppose there's got to be some truth to it. After all, you can't be a hypocrite unless you actually stand for something good (which is why I no longer accuse Democrats of hypocrisy--it would be giving them too much credit for having principles and sincerity in expressing them) and Rush certainly does stand for a few good things. > >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. No, it appears that she's just covering for her incompetence by preventing the military (and perhaps FEMA) from acting and counting on the liberal press to blame Bush. > BTW, do you know what Bush was doing while the storm was hitting the > city? Taking guitar lessons and attending McCain's birthday party. When he could have been doing, what? Twiddling his thumbs waiting for the storm to pass over NO? Besides, he'd already done what he could--calling the governor (and perhaps the mayor?) to personally appeal for a mandatory evacuation order. See (watch the wrap): http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-18/112523994020 1382.xml&storylist=louisiana But I suppose that it was Bush's fault for assuming that with a mandatory evacuation order, the local officials wouldn't need further (insulting-to-their-intelligence) instructions to load up school and municipal buses with the indigent, impoverished, the home-bound, and the sick and hospitalized. Yeah, I suppose that's his bad. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
