On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 00:42:23 -0600, "Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip> >> 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. When, if ever, did -any- state declare a SoE -TWICE- for the same incident? And if it never happened, how can you presume that a second declaration would be "reasonable"? <snip> >> 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. Interesting twist but it won't work. It's obvious you didn't read the WH press release I cited earlier: ========= "The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing." "The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard........." "Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding." ========= The federal government -had- the authority, as requested by the governors of the three affected states, to take charge of the disaster recovery efforts, and that authority was established -before- the hurricane made landfall. >> >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." Yes, he can. That's part of what a federal SoE declaration is all about. It's not "just about the money", as some over-cynical critics would like to believe. >> >> > 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. Are you getting paid for your part in "Operation Blame the Locals"? Or are you just upset that the Democrats are demanding an independant commission to investigate and discover the -real- facts? >> >> > 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." Like I said before, if you have proof (any verifiable or credible source) showing that Blanco was blocking federal assistance then by all means post it. >> >> > 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. The only thing that was required was an order from Bush. <snip> >> >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. Proof? > 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 Maybe you should have read the Red Cross FAQ that your source cited: "The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city." Also: "The Red Cross does not conduct search and rescue operations. We are an organization of civilian volunteers and cannot get relief aid into any location until the local authorities say it is safe and provide us with security and access." Maybe it was a good decision, maybe not. But it certainly didn't turn out very well because when the state and local resources crapped out the FEDERAL government dragged it's heels evacuating the shelters. Or are you buying Brown's excuse that he didn't know what was going on for -five days- even though the rest of the world had been watching the situation degrade on national TV the whole time? >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 It's interesting how they left out some pertinent facts: - Half the drivers that they lined up before the storm were missing afterwards; - Many of the buses -were- running, evacuating people from around the city to the shelters (where it was expected that they would soon be evacuated out of the city), until the floods shut them down; - After the city flooded the remaining buses were submerged, so it didn't matter if they could find any drivers or not. Once again, try to find a reputable source for your 'facts'. >> >> 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? I wouldn't know -- I'm not a Libertarian. >> > 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)? I just provided two. Need more? <snip> >> >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. I'm still waiting....... >> >> 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? Well, I didn't see any people at the Superdome having birthday parties or taking guitar lessons. >> 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! I posted the link in reference to the pictures, not the timeline. >> > 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. Yep, really biased. Born and raised in NO, and lost her childhood home in the disaster. > 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. Scroll down to "Lost in Translation" and read carefully: http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_respectfulofotters_archive.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. > >Covered this. Again, perhaps Bill has some additional info at his >fingertips. Bill is in the killfile, but feel free to google "Hurricane Pam" as I suggested to him. >> 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? He took charge of that situation almost immediately (he needed time to finish the photo op with the school kids). >> 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? Here's an outstanding article that will tell you more about FEMA that I'm sure you really want to know: http://www.tulsapartners.org/news/2004-web-19.htm >> 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. Show me a city that has no corruption and I'll show you a Pope that isn't Catholic. > 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/AR2005090702462.html You forgot to mention the parts of that article which noted that the wetlands "once provided a measure of natural hurricane protection for New Orleans", and that this storm passed just east of that area. Regardless, every little bit helps when the area is of such vital economic importance. >> 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 Only time will tell. ----== 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
