Greetings again, Frank! Frank Gilliland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >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.
Rrrriiiight. > >> 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. Not really. Just being reasonable. > >> >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? Yes. If the lieutenant is in the captain's chain of command. I'm sure that Bill can clarify this if needed. If the Lt. is not in the Capt's chain of command, the Capt. may have to simply suck it up and deal with it if he can't get the Lt.'s chain of command to remove him. > >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. Like I've been trying to tell you. Bush can NOT "just step in." > >> > 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. Yep. Now. After the state government failed miserably, they are finally allowed in when she gets to have them under her control. > >> > 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". Right. Finally, after "mother" said "you may." > >> > 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 evidently, whatever it required was missing for several critical days. > >> >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. Except, apparently, the governor. Here's another little nugget: "The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security [a LA state agency] blocked a vanguard of Red Cross trucks filled with water, food, blankets and hygiene items from bringing relief to the thousands of hungry and thirsty evacuees stranded in the New Orleans Superdome after Hurricane Katrina struck, according to a Fox News Channel report." See: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46224 And while it doesn't address the "bottleneck" issue, here's another: The Mayor turned up his nose at using school buses to evacuate residents and insisted on Greyhound buses! In other words, instead of bringing in a few loads of bus drivers (or simply putting some responsible drivers in the seats) and having them drive out the buses that were already right there IN New Orleans, he wanted 500 Greyhound buses driven in from around the country, loaded up, and then driven out! See: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/8/114045.shtml > >> And you seem to be somewhat intelligent -- why do you even bother > >> watching that pompous hypocrite? > > 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. Hmm. Mighty judgemental for a libertarian isn't that? Criticizing someone for a drug addiction? > > 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. Got any generally-accepted examples (even hypotheticals)? > >> >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: So it matters less what he actually did than how it looks? It matters less that he was trying, behind the scenes, to get an evacuation going than that he was enjoying some "down-time" at a time that he could do nothing anyway? > http://www.mainstreetmajority.org/page.php?3 Hmm. You think they'd bother to put Bush's call to the Governor asking her to evacuate the city on their timeline? Or when Nagin turned down the idea of using school buses? Or when the Red Cross was ready to bring food and water to the folks in the Superdome? Or when the Red Cross got the word from the state that they weren't wanted? Rrrriiiight! > > 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 This is the same babe who was going to "punch Bush in the nose. Literally!" Talk about biased sources. So, there's a bunch of equipment being staged on one day for deployment and Bush holds a press conference there. The next day Landrieu goes by and is sorry that its gone off to be used. > >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. Covered this. Again, perhaps Bill has some additional info at his fingertips. > And to respond as quickly as he did after 9/11. Uhm. He responded to 9/11 with significant aid in less than two days? > It would also have been good not to > slash FEMA to the bone (and appoint a bone-head to run it). You have the figures? > And to > fork over a little money for the wetlands that would have helped to > protect the city. Etc, etc. Actually, the question of federal aid for "wetlands" and flood control, etc. to protect NO, especially, is really an issue of how does the federal government get that stuff built in the Byzantine, corrupt, political environment of NO and LA. EVERY levee has it's own "control board." And changing that is going to require a state constitutional amendment (which, apparently has to be approved by NO voters as well.) On top of that, there were the "greens" stopping all kinds of protective plans (whether any of them would have helped NO this time is another matter). See: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berlau200509080824.asp And here's some more interesting info (including Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of the Corps, saying that the marsh-restoration would not have done much to diminish Katrina's storm surge. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702 462.html > It's going to be an interesting winter. Yup. What nature hasn't wrecked, the lawyers will finish off. http://varifrank.com/archives/2005/09/the_kingfish_is.php 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
