On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:57:28 -0600, "Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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." That certainly seems to be the case. >> >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? Not really. The problem with the major networks is that they are too afraid to swim against the current even if that's the only way to get at the truth. The only major US news service I've seen that even comes close to having any credibility is NPR, but you still have to sift through the liberalism. The BBC does a pretty good job of getting the whole story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4216508.stm >> >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. Hmmm..... that sounds like a lot of backpeddling to me. Did any of the other states declare a second SoE? For that matter, was a second SoE even needed after the first one had already been established? I don't think so. >> 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? If a lieutenant can't get the job done, isn't it the captain's responsibility to find someone who can? >From what I've read, Bush pushed Blanco and Nagin for mandatory evacuations -before- the storm hit. After it was apparent that they couldn't get the job done then Bush should have stepped in. Although I'm not sure that's what happened. It may be that Blanco and Nagin were expecting federal help as prescribed in the state's emergency plans, but that the help wasn't forthcoming. Either way, FEMA is doing an absolutely incompetent job, due in part to Bush's slashing of the agency. >> > 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? Yep. NG units from 25 states helping in all affected states are under the single command of the Louisiana Adjutant General. >> > 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. It appears that there was indeed a request, or there wouldn't be an LHA full of Marines docked in the city under the command of the "Federal Joint Task Force Katrina". >> > 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. But evidently it does not require a declaration of a SoE. >> >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? Loaded question: You said "THE bottleneck". I don't believe that to be the case. She may have not responded appropriately to the warnings, but since the wind stopped there has been nothing preventing FEMA from doing it's job except FEMA. >> 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. Well -there's- some good news! > 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. Drug addiction, among other things. > 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. You can also be a hypocrite by standing for something bad, but that's irrelevant; Rush stands for himself. So does the Shrub, which is why I isolate him and his regime from the rest of the Republican Party. >> >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. Do you have some facts to back that up? If not then it's nothing but pure speculation. >> 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? Twiddling his thumbs would paint a better picture than photos of him having a good ol' time while a significant part of the country was being flushed down the toilet: http://www.mainstreetmajority.org/page.php?3 > 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 I'm not running anything that can view that, but I'll take your word for it. Still, it doesn't look like he was concerned at all about the storm and more interested in the photo ops -- which explains the staged cleanup and rescue operations during his visit. Or didn't Rush mention that little bit of Bush fakery? http://landrieu.senate.gov/releases/05/2005903E12.html >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. No, but it would have been prudent for him to take charge when he saw that the situation was beyond the capabilities of the local and state governments, as was obvious even before the storm hit. And to respond as quickly as he did after 9/11. It would also have been good not to slash FEMA to the bone (and appoint a bone-head to run it). And to fork over a little money for the wetlands that would have helped to protect the city. Etc, etc. It's going to be an interesting winter. ----== 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
