Hurricane!

[Darque]

What difference does it make? N.O. is gone.

[Commissar]

The federal government isn't in charge of making sure the leevies don't break in NO.

 

We have state charters which clearly outline what a state has authority over, etc.

 

Then we have local charters, etc.

 

The federal government does not tell the states where to spend state revenues.

 

The state does not tell the city where to spend city revenues.

 

The city was responsible for the upkeep of city property.

 

Blaming the federal government for this implies that you think the federal government should control all actions on the state and city level.

 

If that is what you are really saying, then you are arguing for toltarianism, and I will scoff at you.

 

If that is not what you are saying, then I will call you an opportunist spin doctor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then you'll have to call me an opportunist spin doctor. I'm one of the relative few, it seems, who thinks that FEMA should M E with something at least vaguely related to efficiency.

 

Once again, we all knew this was going to go federal. No state in the union has the resources to handle this kind of disaster alone.

[EnderAndrew]

Then you'll have to call me an opportunist spin doctor.  I'm one of the relative few, it seems, who thinks that FEMA should M E with something at least vaguely related to efficiency.

 

Once again, we all knew this was going to go federal.  No state in the union has the resources to handle this kind of disaster alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And apparently you don't understand what the various branches of government are for either.

 

FEMA is not charaged with preventing natural disasters, nor charting weather paterns.

 

You criticized Bush, saying that this could have been predicted and prevented.

 

How can FEMA possibly have intimate knowledge of every possible scenario that could befall the entire nation?

 

It can't.

 

But the mayor of NO last year said that if the leevies did break, the onus would be on the people to evacuate when told, saying it would be near impossible to rescue people.

 

That would be a largely unpopular and difficult thing to say now. If he said it was people's own fault for staying behind, he would be stoned. But he said it last year. I would have to imagine the mayor of NO would have a much better idea what his city is like, and how feasibility rescue plans are than you or I.

 

What bothers me is that you exploit the misfortune of others to futher your political agenda.

[Commissar]

Then you'll have to call me an opportunist spin doctor.  I'm one of the relative few, it seems, who thinks that FEMA should M E with something at least vaguely related to efficiency.

 

Once again, we all knew this was going to go federal.  No state in the union has the resources to handle this kind of disaster alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And apparently you don't understand what the various branches of government are for either.

 

FEMA is not charaged with preventing natural disasters, nor charting weather paterns.

 

You criticized Bush, saying that this could have been predicted and prevented.

 

How can FEMA possibly have intimate knowledge of every possible scenario that could befall the entire nation?

 

It can't.

 

But the mayor of NO last year said that if the leevies did break, the onus would be on the people to evacuate when told, saying it would be near impossible to rescue people.

 

That would be a largely unpopular and difficult thing to say now. If he said it was people's own fault for staying behind, he would be stoned. But he said it last year. I would have to imagine the mayor of NO would have a much better idea what his city is like, and how feasibility rescue plans are than you or I.

 

What bothers me is that you exploit the misfortune of others to futher your political agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait a minute. I never said the hurricane could be prevented. Find that quote and post it, and I'll retract it.

 

What I have said is that the federal response to the hurricane has been woefully inadequate. I said that the hurricane hitting NO could've - and was - predicted. And every prediction I heard said that it'd go very, very bad, very, very quickly. Now, what's so wrong with expecting a federal agency to prepare for that?

 

Political agenda? I'm not running for anything. And what bothers me is that you can't admit the feds royally screwed this one up.

[EnderAndrew]

Wait a minute.  I never said the hurricane could be prevented.  Find that quote and post it, and I'll retract it.

No you said the situation could be predicted. It wasn't. Not a single person said the leevies would break when Katrina hit. You imply that somehow lives could have been saved, and you outright say the reaction has been poor since this could have been predicted.

 

Given that NO ONE actually predicted the leevies would break, I think you are wrong.

What I have said is that the federal response to the hurricane has been woefully inadequate.  I said that the hurricane hitting NO could've - and was - predicted.  And every prediction I heard said that it'd go very, very bad, very, very quickly.  Now, what's so wrong with expecting a federal agency to prepare for that?

Tell me what should have been different.

 

Did anyone predict the leevies would break? No. The experts predicted that Mississippi would be hit worst by the hurricane, which is what happened.

 

Could anyone predict that the police force in NO would be largely missing?

 

Could anyone predict that when the first crews went in to rescue people, that people would be firing guns or shooting cops?

 

Hindsight is nifty and all, but I'm just curious what you would have done differently, given that getting to the area is difficult.

 

How long does it take to assess damage and formulate exactly what reaction is needed?

 

People forget that initially the leevies didn't break right away. People also forget that relief was in the city within 2 days. That was FASTER than with Hurricane Andrews.

Political agenda?  I'm not running for anything.  And what bothers me is that you can't admit the feds royally screwed this one up.

When aren't you blaming Bush for everything on the planet? It is quite possible to have a political agenda outside of running for office.

 

I'm sure things could have been handled better, but you single out Bush and blame him specifically to further your political tirade. No one man is responsible for what happened here.

 

The greatest mistake in this whole travesty has been not maintaining the leevies, and several people over the years have been guilty of that. None of them have been the President who doesn't oversee that.

[Commissar]

Wait a minute.  I never said the hurricane could be prevented.  Find that quote and post it, and I'll retract it.

No you said the situation could be predicted. It wasn't. Not a single person said the leevies would break when Katrina hit. You imply that somehow lives could have been saved, and you outright say the reaction has been poor since this could have been predicted.

 

Given that NO ONE actually predicted the leevies would break, I think you are wrong.

What I have said is that the federal response to the hurricane has been woefully inadequate.  I said that the hurricane hitting NO could've - and was - predicted.  And every prediction I heard said that it'd go very, very bad, very, very quickly.  Now, what's so wrong with expecting a federal agency to prepare for that?

Tell me what should have been different.

 

Did anyone predict the leevies would break? No. The experts predicted that Mississippi would be hit worst by the hurricane, which is what happened.

 

Could anyone predict that the police force in NO would be largely missing?

 

Could anyone predict that when the first crews went in to rescue people, that people would be firing guns or shooting cops?

 

Hindsight is nifty and all, but I'm just curious what you would have done differently, given that getting to the area is difficult.

 

How long does it take to assess damage and formulate exactly what reaction is needed?

 

People forget that initially the leevies didn't break right away. People also forget that relief was in the city within 2 days. That was FASTER than with Hurricane Andrews.

Political agenda?  I'm not running for anything.  And what bothers me is that you can't admit the feds royally screwed this one up.

When aren't you blaming Bush for everything on the planet? It is quite possible to have a political agenda outside of running for office.

 

I'm sure things could have been handled better, but you single out Bush and blame him specifically to further your political tirade. No one man is responsible for what happened here.

 

The greatest mistake in this whole travesty has been not maintaining the leevies, and several people over the years have been guilty of that. None of them have been the President who doesn't oversee that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you're going to make me go back and find the post, I believe on this very thread, linking to someone saying precisely that the levees would break.

[Commissar]

Ah, it's over in the "Daily Show Weighs in On Katrina" thread. Jon Stewart makes my point for me. I'm referring to the Bush's Timeline video.

 

 

I blame Bush for everything, you don't blame him for anything. At least I learned from my mistakes and didn't vote for the nutjob the second time around.

 

You're welcome to stick with this, "Everything was done right; no blame to be had here," line, but at some point reality's going to sink in. I hope.

[Commissar]

Oh, and you might want to check out NOAA's warnings before the storm hit. Just a thought.

 

Seriously. Did you really claim that nobody knew it was going to be this bad? Nobody had a clue? Really?

[metadigital]

I think that news reporter should quit being so dismayed with the anarchy and help out instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

 

I also think that the war correspondents in Iraq ought to put down the mic and grab a rifle. Nothing like untrained people in a crisis situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I remember seeing a program in which some news guys said that if all the journalists had been armed with guns at Tora Bora in Afghanistan, Osama would have been dead or captured by now. There were more reporters than US soldiers around that mountain. (according to them anyway)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't want most reporters to be armed. war is dangerous enough without drunken egomaniacs of suspicious intellect being set loose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's a great idea! We have way too many reporters ...

[Commissar]

I think it's a great idea! We have way too many reporters ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But only a precious few with cojones, or at least a sense of dedication to their job. And I mean their real job, not ratings-whoring.

[Lucius]

Ah, it's over in the "Daily Show Weighs in On Katrina" thread.  Jon Stewart makes my point for me.  I'm referring to the Bush's Timeline video.

 

 

I blame Bush for everything, you don't blame him for anything.  At least I learned from my mistakes and didn't vote for the nutjob the second time around.

 

You're welcome to stick with this, "Everything was done right; no blame to be had here," line, but at some point reality's going to sink in.  I hope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seconded!

[Walsingham]

Ender -

 

Step 1: Accept that it engineers assessing the levees were on record as stating the levees would not stand a category 4 or 5 hurricane.

 

Step 2: Accept that the storm was predicted to hit category four or five.

 

Step 3: Combine steps 1 and 2.

 

~

 

Irrespective of the responsibility of the federal government to pay for the levees being kept up to scratch, which doesn't bother me, FEMA and the DHS have responsibility for organising relief and support in the event of disasters. thsi has not been done effectively or efficiently.

 

Moreover, as I stated before (maybe my posts are too long) the president is less to blame for not acting when it happened, and more for installing poor leaders in his administration, and for permitting a negative culture of buck-passing to persist. He is also to blame for not being better informed about steps 1-3 above, and recognising they entailed a disaster down the line.

 

I'm not happy about blaming the majority of people for not leaving. I don't see that all of them could, having neither transportation, nor housing waiting for them, nor secure jobs to come back to if it turned out to be a false alarm. Those aspects should have been looked at when evacuation was recognised as the only option.

[Commissar]

Moreover, as I stated before (maybe my posts are too long) the president is less to blame for not acting when it happened, and more for installing poor leaders in his administration, and for permitting a negative culture of buck-passing to persist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, that's just going too far.

 

What, pray tell, is wrong with appointing an Attorney General who believes in snake-handling as part of his religion, as well as the rejection of modern medicine?

 

Or one who personally authored a statement suggesting that the United States might be better served by allowing torture?

 

What's so wrong with appointing an ambassador described even by the people who like him as a "rager"?

 

Or an emergency agency director whose only prior experience is judging horses?

 

"There'll be plenty of time to figure out what went right and what went wrong. Right now, we're busy trying to figure out how to spin this."

[metadigital]

Tell me what should have been different.

 

Did anyone predict the leevies would break?  No.  The experts predicted that Mississippi would be hit worst by the hurricane, which is what happened.

 

Could anyone predict that the police force in NO would be largely missing?

 

Could anyone predict that when the first crews went in to rescue people, that people would be firing guns or shooting cops?

 

Hindsight is nifty and all, but I'm just curious what you would have done differently, given that getting to the area is difficult.

 

How long does it take to assess damage and formulate exactly what reaction is needed?

 

People forget that initially the leevies didn't break right away.  People also forget that relief was in the city within 2 days.  That was FASTER than with Hurricane Andrews.

Political agenda?  I'm not running for anything.  And what bothers me is that you can't admit the feds royally screwed this one up.

When aren't you blaming Bush for everything on the planet? It is quite possible to have a political agenda outside of running for office.

 

I'm sure things could have been handled better, but you single out Bush and blame him specifically to further your political tirade. No one man is responsible for what happened here.

 

The greatest mistake in this whole travesty has been not maintaining the leevies, and several people over the years have been guilty of that. None of them have been the President who doesn't oversee that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, Ender, they had a (FEMA-run, IIRC) "Operation Hurricane Pam" last year which was this exact scenario, i.e. a category 4 hurricane making landfall at New Orleans, and the results were the verisimilitude of two weeks ago.

 

And the findings were not acted on, just filed away. That's why, when the hurricane was predicted to be approaching New Orleans, the Mayor evacuated everyone; he knew there was a serious danger than the lev

[Walsingham]

Incidentally I saw a fantastic right wing spinner on ITV last night claiming that while a higher percentage of Americans lived below the poverty line than there were in, say, France, American poor people had a higher standard of living! More likely to have a car, washer-dryer, and so on. I don't know if either fact is true, but I had to admire his cheek.

 

"Send us your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. We will make them stylish and full of moxie. Or something."

 

And Commissar, I like the idea of a diplomat who loses his temper. Might not work in all cultures but some people do react to that. And I assume you are here referring to Wilford Brimley.

[Commissar]

And Commissar, I like the idea of a diplomat who loses his temper. Might not work in all cultures but some people do react to that. And I assume you are here referring to Wilford Brimley.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like a diplomat who can pretend to get angry, but not one who genuinely can't control his anger.

 

Bottom line? Our president's dumb and likes appointing people of a similar bent. I'm surprised that he didn't tack on a "must speak in public like a mentally-disabled eight-year old," requirement, just so nobody'd outpace him.

[Gorth]

Food for thought. Fron USENET (rec.humor.funny):

 

Occurred to me that hurricanes seem to happen in Republican

administrations.  So I checked the top 10 past hurricanes.  All happen

during Republican administrations except one.  Supposed God is trying to

tell us something? =20

 

Not including Katrina, the total is $139 billion, of which $10.8

happened during a Democratic administration.  Does that mean God is 92%

Democratic?

 

Andrew 1992 43.7 billion Republican

Charley 2004 15.0  Republican

Ivan 2004 14.2  Republican

Hugo 1989 12.3  Republican

Agnes 1972 11.3  Republican

Betsy 1965 10.8  Democrat

Frances 2004 8.9  Republican

Camille 1969 8.9  Republican

Diane 1955 7.0  Republican

Jeanne 2004 6.9  Republican

 

all in 2004 dollars

[LoneWolf16]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9286534/

 

Pretty much says it all...

 

 

Why not blame Bush, Ender, or every branch of the federal and state government that could have acted to lessen the severity of the current situation yet failed to do so? (Remind anybody of the reports prior to 9/11, regarding a Mr. Bin Laden...which no-one so much as batted an eye at?)

 

The state failed the city, and the federal government failed the state.

 

 

 

But less focus on how this happened for right now...do what's necessary to help those poor people, and then impeach Bush and hang the various leaders in his administration by their entrails...

[Walsingham]

Yay! Entrails!

[Calax]

It was funny in my government class two years ago because I tried to impeach bush (primaily over the prisoners at guantanamo) and ended up getting a heck of a lot of points for having the balls to do it even though it got defeated in a mock congress.

 

Edit: Oh and uhhhhhhhh I think you gents might like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national...ial/05bush.html

Edited September 11, 2005 by Calax

[EnderAndrew]

Ah, it's over in the "Daily Show Weighs in On Katrina" thread.  Jon Stewart makes my point for me.  I'm referring to the Bush's Timeline video.

 

 

I blame Bush for everything, you don't blame him for anything.  At least I learned from my mistakes and didn't vote for the nutjob the second time around.

 

You're welcome to stick with this, "Everything was done right; no blame to be had here," line, but at some point reality's going to sink in.  I hope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said multiple times that things could have been done better.

 

When facts are thrown in your face, you choose to remain willfully ignorant of them to exploit the death of helpless people towards furthering your political opinions regardless of truth.

 

If you read my posts you'd see that I blast Bush on a variety of topics. I hated his proposition of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants while legal immigrants wait years and years for following the system.

 

I hate his economic policies. I feel religion doesn't belong in government. I feel that he ignores the Constitution and discriminates homosexuals illegally.

 

I voted for him despite my dislike for him because I truly loathed Kerry.

 

However, not only do you remain willfully ignorant, but you intentionally misquote what I say.

 

You are added to my ignore list. I don't deal with people who do not operate on any realm of objectivity or truth.

[Commissar]

Ah, it's over in the "Daily Show Weighs in On Katrina" thread.  Jon Stewart makes my point for me.  I'm referring to the Bush's Timeline video.

 

 

I blame Bush for everything, you don't blame him for anything.  At least I learned from my mistakes and didn't vote for the nutjob the second time around.

 

You're welcome to stick with this, "Everything was done right; no blame to be had here," line, but at some point reality's going to sink in.  I hope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said multiple times that things could have been done better.

 

When facts are thrown in your face, you choose to remain willfully ignorant of them to exploit the death of helpless people towards furthering your political opinions regardless of truth.

 

If you read my posts you'd see that I blast Bush on a variety of topics. I hated his proposition of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants while legal immigrants wait years and years for following the system.

 

I hate his economic policies. I feel religion doesn't belong in government. I feel that he ignores the Constitution and discriminates homosexuals illegally.

 

I voted for him despite my dislike for him because I truly loathed Kerry.

 

However, not only do you remain willfully ignorant, but you intentionally misquote what I say.

 

You are added to my ignore list. I don't deal with people who do not operate on any realm of objectivity or truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone's a little mad they got called out on the whole, "No one predicted the levees would break," thing, eh? Should've just retracted it! You spoke without any grasp on the facts. Happens to us all sometimes.

 

Though I do think you're getting a little too worked up about it.

[LoneWolf16]

This is actually, more or less, typical of Mr. Big Cat here " .

[EnderAndrew]

This is actually, more or less, typical of Mr. Big Cat here  " .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is typical?

[Cantousent]

I dunno. Bush must bear a lot of the blame. That's what being President does, makes you responsible for the failings that occur during your administration. Are folks coming out of the woodwork to make unreasonable claims against the administration? Of course. That doesn't change the fact that you don't take the job unless you can handle the heat.

 

Bush will manage to escape a lot of the heat over the long term for a couple of reasons. First of all, he's great at getting out of these sorts of fixes. I didn't think he had a chance of winning re-election when it became clear that either there were no WMDs in Iraq or they were so well hidden we might never find them. The other reason he'll escape blame is simple... this isn't a problem the Bush administration made. The levies were in disrepair for years. The congress decides the budget. The state and local governments have just as much (and I think more) responsibility for the State of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans.

 

Yes, Bush made mistakes, but I think the Democrats are going to make a fatal flaw. They'll press their case too strongly. Already, the Dems are creating sympathy for the President by making stupid claims such as, "the war in Iraq is one of the reasons the levies were in disrepair" or, "President Bush is clearly racist because most of the victims were black." Absolutely shameless.

 

So, Let the President take the heat. It