No, Really, We've Got It Under Control

Via Majikthise, the mind boggles at stuff like this:

A visibly angry Mayor Daley said the city had offered emergency, medical and technical help to the federal government as early as Sunday to assist people in the areas stricken by Hurricane Katrina, but as of Friday, the only things the feds said they wanted was a single tank truck.
[...]
Daley said the city offered 36 members of the firefighters' technical rescue teams, eight emergency medical technicians, search-and-rescue equipment, more than 100 police officers as well as police vehicles and two boats, 29 clinical and 117 non-clinical health workers, a mobile clinic and eight trained personnel, 140 Streets and Sanitation workers and 29 trucks, plus other supplies. City personnel are willing to operate self-sufficiently and would not depend on local authorities for food, water, shelter and other supplies, he said.

Comments

Jim Walsh | September 3, 2005, 5:04pm | #

Last night Koppel interviewed a pissed-off Louisiana congressman who described how he found National Guardsmen sitting on their hands waiting for orders to move out. Amazing.
Tragically, I fear most people will miss the point, saying "if only we had the right people in charge," instead of realizing that waiting for government to bail you out at anytime is a sucker's bet.

Shannon Love | September 3, 2005, 5:29pm | #

Not that I am any fan of FEMA but it is very difficult to just plug people into any large scale operation if no prior planning for them exist. There has to be communications, fuel for vehicles, knowledge of capabilities etc. before you actually use somebody. A disaster area isn't the place to just randomly throw people into.

On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past FEMA to be unable to accept help because they didn't have all the right forms filled out.

That organization needs a little more touch of the cowboy.

Tom Crick | September 3, 2005, 5:36pm | #

I dunno Julian, people keep posting reports and facts here at Hit & Run, and a lot of recent visitors are finding it really confusing.

...Apparently, all we need to know is that pointing out government ineptitude is Bush bashing.

Johnny | September 3, 2005, 5:38pm | #

Jim, Aren't the NG's the state militia's that are there, empowered by the people to help in just such instances?

Are you arguing against my state having firemen? Isn't the question why do the states have to go thru Soviet style politico's to use their own resources now?

If the people organize themselves but have Soviet Style Politico's than usurp that authority, isn't that a problem?

If I had a neighborhood watch, and then Bush came and deputized them all and sent them to a foreign country, would it still be my fault if robberies increased in my neighborhood. I mean, if I organize new militia's and the guvmints gonna take them too, doesn't that restrict my ability to freely organize against such events?

Tom Crick | September 3, 2005, 5:52pm | #

...Do you think Bushbots would buy "Support our FEMA" yellow ribbon magnets?

Phil | September 3, 2005, 6:26pm | #

It hasn't yet occurred to Jim that all these snafus from the Bush-era FEMA and so forth are happening by design rather than simply being a structural feature. It will be interesting to see what happens when it does.

Jim Walsh | September 3, 2005, 6:33pm | #

Aren't the NG's the state militia's that are there, empowered by the people to help in just such instances?

Of course. What I'm saying is that people, for their own sake, need to realize that in the long run the only ones they can realy depend on is themselves (and each other).

It hasn't yet occurred to Jim that all these snafus from the Bush-era FEMA and so forth are happening by design...

Huh?

Phil | September 3, 2005, 6:38pm | #

Put it this way, Jim: What better way for the Grover Norquist crowd in Washington -- which includes pretty much the entire GOP right now -- to demonstrate why we need to get rid of government than by fucking up domestic disaster relief efforts? It's not as if they need to ride this one to a war overseas, so might as well muff it, then tell everyone, "See? See? This is what we've been saying all along -- government is just no damned good!"

IOW, for them, it's a feature, not a bug, and one that was deliberately programmed in. Don't you think if George Bush really cared about an effective FEMA, he would have put someone with disaster preparedness and relief experience in charge of it?

Shannon Love | September 3, 2005, 6:41pm | #

Phil,

Wow, you've managed to create a conspiracy theory based on the idea that politicians will make themselves personal look bad in order to advance some abstract agenda.

I don't think they are that principled.

Moon God | September 3, 2005, 7:07pm | #

Shannon & Phil,

Or that clever. It's the fatal flaw of virtually every conspiracy theory.

And perhaps someone here can enlighten me, but my understanding was that when it came to the National Guard or FEMA, doesn't the Governor have to specifically mobilize them (or request, in the case of FEMA)? As for other military, aren't there laws regarding posse commintatus (sp?) that prohibit the use of military forces on US soil? The last I'm quite fuzzy about. But I'm 85% certain about the requirement that the governor or state government in general take the action.

Captain Awesome | September 3, 2005, 7:11pm | #

A little OT, but earlier when the reaction was coming in from Europe and they said this was an example of why we needed a stronger government. This latest talk about the NG makes me think it's more of a warning for them against Brussels.

Flyover Country | September 3, 2005, 7:11pm | #

Tom Crick wrote:

"...Apparently, all we need to know is that pointing out government ineptitude is Bush bashing."

Continuously pointing out Bush and FEMA's ineptitude without acknowledgine the ineptitude of the mayor and governor is bush bashing.

Pointing out government ineptitude at all levels is libertarianism.

Warren | September 3, 2005, 7:17pm | #

Not to mention that the notion that Republicans favor smaller government is SOOOOOOO last millennium.

JonBuck | September 3, 2005, 7:38pm | #

You want to know what the head of FEMA did before he joined the Bush Administration in 2001? "Brown spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders' and horse-show organization based in Colorado." They fired him.

Full post here at The Moderate Voice.

Tom Crick | September 3, 2005, 7:38pm | #

"Continuously pointing out Bush and FEMA's ineptitude without acknowledgin[g] the ineptitude of the mayor and governor is bush bashing."

This is bullshit.

...stinks like the ol' objectively pro-whatever argument. We had a nice thread about that kind of logic earlier this week.

Cliff | September 3, 2005, 7:54pm | #

Deaths from marijuana use : 0

Deaths from FEMA mismanagement and Bushbots dropping the ball : 1000's and 1000's.

Conclusion: Government by Bushbots is more dangerous than marijuana use.

mewsifer | September 3, 2005, 8:40pm | #

"...Do you think Bushbots would buy "Support our FEMA" yellow ribbon magnets?"

If you're using terms like "Bushbots" as you do here, you're bashing Bush and, for that matter, anyone who disagrees with your personal politics enough to support him. And your "objective" argument is that we're stupid for doing so.

You could at least try to have that much honesty.

Rest assured we all know what you mean; if you fool anyone, it's only yourself. What's bullshit is you saying otherwise.

But of course, I can already hear what 80% of the anti-Bush crowd will say in response: "Bush lied, and people died, so why should we tell the truth, even about our own opinions?"

Morat | September 3, 2005, 8:44pm | #

It's worth noting how FEMA's act was amazingly more competent in Florida during the 2004 hurricanes. Not up to Clinton-era standards, but then Clinton staffed it with competent people, but in Florida it was obvious that White House people were watching FEMA like a hawk and making sure things worked well.

I can't imagine why New Orleans, 2005, would see such an utterly different response. It wasn't just scale -- FEMA couldn't even get their own command and control up, or make the simplest decisions, so it wasn't like they couldn't deal with ALL the mess. They'd have screwed up just as spectatuclarly if the problem was merely a burst water main.

FEMA's incompetence in Katrina was due to an utter lack of concern by the White House. No one cared until late Wednesday, when Bush's advisors finally realized Bush's poll numbers were falling.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory -- that implies intent. I'd call it the regular Bush administration MO. If it doesn't benefit Bush, it's not worth the energy. In 2004, competent FEMA response was worth tons of votes -- an incompetence would lose them. In 2005, Bush didn't give a shit.

Not to mention, of course, that Bush -- like you gentlemen -- doesn't believe government can solve problems, so government jobs don't go to the competent, but to people he wants to reward. (Checking the bios of the top FEMA officials makes that obvious). Perhaps a free-market solution would work better, but it's been proven (FEMA under Witt) that a competently-led FEMA can manage quite well.

Tom Crick | September 3, 2005, 8:49pm | #

"If you're using terms like "Bushbots" as you do here, you're bashing Bush and, for that matter, anyone who disagrees with your personal politics enough to support him."

"Bushbots" simply refers to propaganda victims, not Bush himself. ...Not that I don't bash Bush, just about every chance I get.

...Of course, just because I like to bash Bush, doesn't mean I'm wrong for doing so--does it?

"Rest assured we all know what you mean; if you fool anyone, it's only yourself. What's bullshit is you saying otherwise."

I have no idea what you're talking about here, or what this has to do with the faulty logic to which my last comment referred.

Deus ex Machina | September 3, 2005, 8:50pm | #

Where the hell did all those billions of dollars spent on creating DHS go? They couldn't have wasted all of it on creating the useless terrorist watch list or hiring ineffective airport screeners to catch nail-cutters.

I remember after 9/11 seeing news stories showing the feds building large warehouses stockpiled with vaccines, first aid gear and hazmat gear to handle a terrorist attack. Are you telling me that there wasn't one single depot near NO? Did they think that New Orleans was never going to be a terrorist target? And if this is how they handle a hurricane, I shudder to think how we're going to fair if the bird-flu pandemic breaks out. I'm picturing something more like "28 Days Later" rather than "Outbreak".

Johnny | September 3, 2005, 8:54pm | #

Jim,

You said "Of course. What I'm saying is that people, for their own sake, need to realize that in the long run the only ones they can realy depend on is themselves (and each other)"

That's what I said, and you seem to have disagreed. If I don't have the right to organize for my own defense becuase the soviets (republicans) are going to steal my prepared resources, then I can't even depend on myself. Unless, wait I have it right here...something about this in the declaration of independence...

Lyn | September 3, 2005, 8:56pm | #

No, the reason four hurricanes went much better in Florida (and the present one so much better in Mississippi) is that the respective governors called up the NG BEFORE the storm, positioned supplies and equipment, had emergency declarations in place and set up OPS centers that FEMA folks could be slotted into. Sheesh, haven't any of you commenters ever observed hurricanes and aftermaths up close?

mewsifer | September 3, 2005, 9:05pm | #

""Bushbots" simply refers to propaganda victims, not Bush himself."

Most people don't think of propaganda as a positive thing. So if Bush is delivering propaganda and "fooling" people, that doesn't say much good about him does it?

And as I said, "your "objective" argument is that " ...we're stupid for [supporting Bush]."

A "propaganda victim" in the United States (especially one who reads Reason!) is either stupid or willfully ignorant.

So thank you for conceding my points on that score.

"...Of course, just because I like to bash Bush, doesn't mean I'm wrong for doing so--does it?"

Certainly not, but I rather suspect you'd be here bashing Bush in any case, so even *if* you're right here, it's like being right some of the time on a multiple choice test becuase you filled in "A" for every answer.


"...I have no idea what you're talking about here"

It would be one thing if you purely criticized the government here, though you'd then have to consider all of it as flyover says. But that's not what you did .....

The Wine Commonsewer | September 3, 2005, 9:08pm | #

Pointing out government ineptitude at all levels is libertarianism.

Amen, Brother Fly

The Wine Commonsewer | September 3, 2005, 9:26pm | #

Maybe Daley's boys should have done like the So Cal Swift Water Rescue teams did. Just get on a C-5 and go do it, 'stead of axing permission I mean.

Morat, FEMA has never had anything remotely close to a coherent response to anything. Because I live here I remember clearly how much criticism FEMA received in the wake of the So Cal firestorms. The FEMA response was identical to NO.

In that same vein, I heard the Head Wench (dude, he said head and wench) from FEMA -in our Sector of Californicate (includes LA) state that FEMA had no contingency plan to provide water to refugees of any catastrophe (read: earthquake) where thousands might gather as they did at the Superdome. She also said that FEMA didn't believe that there would ever be a need for providing water to thousands of people. That tells me volumes about what to expect from FEMA.

Were I the mayor of Nu Awlins I would have driven a bus load of parole officers to the nearest construction equipment yard, NG armory, or army post and commandeered a half dozen water buffalos or water towers and taken them to the Superdome. But he couldn't do that because he a.) voted for Bush, or b.) he's a racist and hates blacks, or c.) he doesn't hate blacks but they just don't matter that much because they didn't vote for Bush in the first place, or d.) Bush should hitched the water buffalos up to AF I because it ain't the mayors job to deal with shit like this.

joe | September 3, 2005, 9:28pm | #

mewsifer, the problem is, by any objective measure, "a" is the right answer a whole lot more than it should be.

Cliff | September 3, 2005, 9:32pm | #

Bush had 5 years to get it right. Bush and Cheney told us that they were the only candidates who had a plan to keep the results of a terrorist attack and the resulting chaos from getting out of control.

I thought they considered what might happen from terrorist attacks that could deny access to an area and cause refugees. These scenarios should have included; dirty bombs, flooding, disease, civil unrest and looting.

A lot of people have made comparisons to Bush's handling of the 9/11 attacks and they are very different because of the confined area of the 9/11 attacks. These areas were easy to secure and the areas hit were mostly business related (very few refugees to relocate). The Katrina debacle occurred over a huge area and it wiped out homes and denied an easy response to emergency responders.

I would have thought that what is occuring now, with the flat boats and helicopters, would have been part of a flood plan. Even getting riverine forces with armored light boats should have been deployed. Troops from Fort Polk could have been used very quickly. When I was at Fort Bliss we were called out for fire duty all the time in the summer to fight forest fires in the mountains north of El Paso. So disaster response can happen very quickly when the right people are called.

The Louisiana National Guard was also used too much to augment forces in Iraq. Now we have troops from other states to fill in and they may not be as culturally aware of things in Louisiana as a native would be and I think that will lead to a more confrontational attitude from both sides.

There are just so many things that Bush's Administration and other levels of government failed at doing or planning for, the list is endless. All the while, taxes go up and blame is deflected by the Bushbots and the true believer types, who probably secretly think that all those sinners in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast got what they deserved.

Tom Crick | September 3, 2005, 9:33pm | #

"So if Bush is delivering propaganda and "fooling" people, that doesn't say much good about him does it?"

It's not just Bush. It's echo chamber radio, certain news stations, certain newspapers, certain magazines with associated web-sites--all with the same talking points.

People regurgitate it all. ...They think they're getting their news from a variety of sources. ...It's funny really--except when they're torture apologists, etc.

"Certainly not, but I rather suspect you'd be here bashing Bush in any case, so even *if* you're right here, it's like being right some of the time on a multiple choice test becuase you filled in "A" for every answer."

I probably didn't tell you that I voted for Bush the first time around. ...Wait, I think I did!

...But you probably don't know that I was and am a big Reaganite. Bush couldn't hold a candle to Ronald Reagan. You seem to assume that I'd bash Bush regardless of his policies and decisions. Why?

Would the things I say be any less true if they came from a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat?

"It would be one thing if you purely criticized the government here, though you'd then have to consider all of it as flyover says. But that's not what you did ....."

I do think government solutions are a bad idea, almost universally. ...but I also think many of the long term problems American faces today are a direct result of bad leadership. I blame President Bush and his administration; I think they're the problem. I think the Bush Administration is largely incompetent, and I think they've demonstrated that repeatedly since taking office.

I've explained my attitude toward future Iraq policy, for instance, thusly. I prefer a competent withdrawal to an incompetent occupation and a competent occupation to an incompetent withdrawal. The problem we have right now is that our leadership is incompetent.

...If I'm right, and, indeed, that's the problem--as a loyal American--shouldn't I be criticizing the President and his administration specifically? ...rather than government in general?

P.S. What does any of this have to do with bad logic flyover used?

Johnny | September 3, 2005, 9:40pm | #

Is this article true???

It claims that citizen boat rescuers were turned away...

I don't really doubt that it is, and it fits into my belief that Bush is really just a modified Soviet.

mewsifer | September 3, 2005, 9:46pm | #

Joe,

I have great respect for folks who try to make the argument you suggest by crticizing *policy*, without resorting to name-calling. I personally (usually) do not have enough self-discipline to avoid responding in kind when the latter takes place first.

I'm a Republican, but Republicans make mistakes (some even willfull) like everyone else. I'm perfectly willing to listen to someone make the argument that, in a particular case, that is what has happened.

On everyone else's points regarding FEMA: Here's something to consider. No civilian agency has the experience neeeded to evacuate a major U.S. city; almost no city mayor (of any party) can possibly master such a huge logistical challenge with myriad, overlapping city agencies and a short time frame. At the end of it, they'll burst into tears like the Mayor of N.O.

Only the military knows how to do an evacuation of this sort with any level of confidence - it's the kind of thing they spend 30+ years grooming generals to do. And even they have trouble!

If we're gonna blame the feds, ok. Next time, let's have military coningenecies to take over city gov't *before* we need to order an evac.

Flyover Country | September 3, 2005, 9:49pm | #

Tom Crick,

Please tell me something the government of Louisiana and New Orleans did well leading up to and after hurrican Katrina?

My point is, you keep pounding on the Bush administration, while ignoring the failure across the board.

I understand you have a problem with Bush's leadership. I respect that, but the issue here is hurricane Katrina. Just because you feel he has f'd up Iraq does not mean he as f'd up the response to hurricane Katrina.

I'm not trying to mindlessly defend the feds here, but I will not let the local officials off the hook. The human catastrophe this has become could have been lessened had the governor and mayor acted appropriately before Katrina hit.

joe | September 3, 2005, 9:51pm | #

Hey, flyover, mewsifer, from FEMA's website:

"Preparing America

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS."

joe | September 3, 2005, 9:57pm | #

mewsifer,

The army kills people and breaks things. They can also do hard manual labor in large numbers when carefully watched over by experts. A tiny fraction of the army actually is experts at certains things, like the Corps of Engineers.

But Emergency Management (formerly known as "Civil (dig the root word) Defense) is a civilian job.

I would no more want the military in charge of search and rescue, clothing, feeding, housing, evacuating, health care, and other emergency response efforts than I would want FEMA in charge of retaking Falluja.

It is self-serving and objectively false to suggest, as your line of argument does, that what we are seeing in New Orleans is pretty much the best we can expect of the feds. They can, and have, done much better in the past.

Flyover Country | September 3, 2005, 10:09pm | #

Hey joe:

http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/plans/EOPSupplement1a.pdf

They had a plan, they didn't implement, thousands died.

FEMA responds. The state and city were supposed to prevent the tragedy of a hundred thousand stuck underwater. The mayor waited too long to order a mandatory evacutation. By the time he did, greyhound has shutdown, the airport was closed. There was ample warning that New Orleans was in the path of hurricane.

It would have been a hell of a lot easier to get the people out before the infrastructure was destroyed and the city was under water.

mewsifer | September 3, 2005, 10:13pm | #

"...But you probably don't know that I was and am a big Reaganite. Bush couldn't hold a candle to Ronald Reagan. You seem to assume that I'd bash Bush regardless of his policies and decisions. Why?"

On Reagan, that makes two of us, no argument whatsoever. Bush never has been, and never will be a Reagan, no matter how he tries. I *dream* of the day we have a Reagan again - I really do.

Look, here's my main point: when you say something like "Bushbot," you (inadvertently?)catch everyone in the Ben Kenobi trap i.e. "who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

It's not you so much, it's that SO MANY people do this.

Remember that Democrats have been saying for years how dumb Republicans are; if you're a Reaganite, you're probably like me - old enough to rememebr when that's all they ever said about him!

My choices in 2004 were Bush or Kerry - and, for the love of God, it's a pretty fair argument that Bush is closer to Reagan than Kerry would have been. Lots of people figured the same thing; they're not bots for doing so.

(Aside: The poor man needed a 36 hour staff conference with Mary Beth Cahill to decide which shoe to tie first. I exaggerate, but really, would he have reacted faster here, would he have fixed Iraq? Would he have done better than Bush? Odds are no.)

The sad fact is both the hurricane and Iraq would have been so much easier if we had all of Reagan's armed foreces, instead of what's left of it after the 90's cutbacks and the high tech version of cutbacks called "transformation."

Tom Crick | September 3, 2005, 10:14pm | #

"I'm not trying to mindlessly defend the feds here, but I will not let the local officials off the hook. The human catastrophe this has become could have been lessened had the governor and mayor acted appropriately before Katrina hit."

I think we can agree that everyone responsible for this tragedy should take their appropriate share of the blame.

Tom Crick | September 3, 2005, 10:24pm | #

"My choices in 2004 were Bush or Kerry - and, for the love of God, it's a pretty fair argument that Bush is closer to Reagan than Kerry would have been. Lots of people figured the same thing; they're not bots for doing so."

I changed my registration to Libertarian back when Bush Sr. broke his tax pledge, but I voted party line Republican in every election, right up to the last one. Supporting the Republicans meant four things to me then:

1) Deep cuts in federal spending
2) Deep cuts in marginal tax rates
3) A pragmatic foreign policy
4) A devotion to free trade

To my eye, George W. Bush failed all four of those tests. ...and I wouldn't have voted for Kerry, even if he'd paid me. I had other options--and I don't want to start another controversy, but you did too--and one of them came closer to passing all four tests than any of the other candidates. Were you aware of Badnarik?

...So he had some kooky ideas about driver's licenses! Nobody's perfect. ; )

Flyover Country | September 3, 2005, 10:26pm | #

Tom Crick,

I agree with you there.

Getting back to the original topic Julian posted on: I'm not sure what to make of the refusal of help from Chicago, right after he posted I heard that a bunch of emergency personnel from the suburb of Milwaukee I live in are heading to Louisiana.

I don't know if anybody sitting at a computer 100's or 1000's of miles away really knows what's going with the relief effort.

Has anybody seen a map show the area where the infrastructure is destroyed? How many people and how much equipment can realistically get into New Orleans. Everybody sits at their computer typing that things should happen faster, but how fast can anything move into that large of a devastated area?

There's lot of sniping, but not much real information. I've been trying to keep up with the efforts to get the rigs and refineries operating because that affects my business, but I haven't really seen as much about progess getting power, etc. to the states affected.

mewsifer | September 3, 2005, 10:33pm | #

Joe,

"But Emergency Management (formerly known as "Civil (dig the root word) Defense) is a civilian job.

I would no more want the military in charge of search and rescue, clothing, feeding, housing, evacuating, health care, and other emergency response efforts than I would want FEMA in charge of retaking Falluja."

Fair enough, but then you'll need a fleet of helicopters, trucks, etc. and great logistical ability to master the situation - you want an Amry not painted green.

The military is expert at logistics, and when everthing is said and done here, I'd bet that logistical failures are the big culprit with Katrina.

This is why the national guard is subordinate to the state governor - because the military is useful in these situations.

"It is self-serving and objectively false to suggest, as your line of argument does, that what we are seeing in New Orleans is pretty much the best we can expect of the feds. They can, and have, done much better in the past."

It's not self-serving, I just want to solve the problem - and I really don't see that a mayor is likely to be up to something this big.

But to be fair: when did we last, in modern times, try to evacuate a city the size of N.O.?

I think we can do better; I was trying to suggest ways to do better without spending money duplicating agencies we already have - money we might spend on prevention, which is the other criticism of both Bush and Clinton here.

BTW American Civil Defense was always a joke during the Cold War; we we're all gonna die.

Ruthless Brown Recluse | September 3, 2005, 10:41pm | #

The primary purpose of government is to euthanize the hoi polloi. Government is a spider. After a formal invitation into the parlour, the next step is a date rape drug/ euthanization.

Thrashing about is what government fears most. Voting is government's venom.

Have a nice day.

joe | September 3, 2005, 11:14pm | #

mewsifer,

I know a good portion of coastal North Carolina was evacuated successfully back in 1999 or 2000, but I don't know how big the numbers were.

That was the first time a portion of the interstate system was made one way, and it worked very well.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 12:00am | #

And to paraphrase Mrs TWC, if I were the president I would have called the boss at FEMA on Monday night and told him he had 12 hours to get food & water to NOLA, and the National Guard mobilized or he was fucking fired. I'da gone down the line from Uncle Ben's Condoleeza Rice as well. Just keep firing people until someone gets the job done.

I mean, come on, you're the president, you can do whatever you want.

Disclaimer: I've never voted for anyone named Bush in my life.

Super Prole | September 4, 2005, 12:22am | #

TWC,

Mrs. Prole said similar things, including, "This is what I pay fucking taxes for, so the government should get off it's ass and conduct some fucking relief."

Two of Mrs. Prole's friends' husbands are soldiers and she was wondering why they weren't alerted or deployed sooner, as in, "What the fuck is the Army for when it's not fucking fighting?"

I also had to listen to her reaction to the bullshit "looting" stories. "It's not fucking looting when the fucking food is abandoned and you're fucking starving. That's called survival."

Mrs. Prole has a damn sewer mouth.

Free minds, Free labor

mewsifer | September 4, 2005, 12:26am | #

TWC/Mrs. TWC:

Fair Comments, but:

"I mean, come on, you're the president, you can do whatever you want."

Had I been President I would have fired the entire senior state government of Louisiana and the N.O. mayor/city council on Monday and federalized eveything, except the constitution would have been in my way ..... damn thing.

From the purely political side, if I were Karl, I'd have as many of these folks as possible hauled up before GOP controlled Congressional committees and torn to pieces for refusing federal control.

Check out the washingtonpost headline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680.html

Karl could also launch investigations of how federal funds have been spent in LA./N.O. for the last 25 years - there's bound to be something juicy.

mewsifer | September 4, 2005, 12:36am | #

From Washington Post cited above:


"Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.

A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.

"The federal government stands ready to work with state and local officials to secure New Orleans and the state of Louisiana," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said. "The president will not let any form of bureaucracy get in the way of protecting the citizens of Louisiana."

Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state's victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort."

So I see:

It's all Bush's fault for not taking control, but they won't agree to give him control because then he could blame them, instead of them blaming him.
That would suck .....

Exactly what is the meaning of "State of Emergency" if this still doesn't count?

Deus ex Machina | September 4, 2005, 12:49am | #

I wonder whether the whole mess in NO could have been better handled if the Pentagon rather than DHS took charge of the initial relief efforts (ie: search and rescue). For all its faults in Iraq the one thing the military is good for is mobilizing a large group of specialized soldiers to accomplish a mission. DoD, despite its Rumsfeld era cuts, still manages to get the job done, provided that there is a clear objective.

DHS, on the other hand, is an unproven entity, burdened with a stultifying bureaucracy seemingly unable to handle the most basic tasks without a paper trail. Its creation was an attempt to show voters that something was being done in the face of the failures of 9/11. The culture of DHS seems to be one of holding endless press conferences to reassure people, rather than accomplish anything concrete.

Evade | September 4, 2005, 1:19am | #

TWC,

In that same vein, I heard the Head Wench (dude, he said head and wench) from FEMA -in our Sector of Californicate (includes LA) state that FEMA had no contingency plan to provide water to refugees of any catastrophe (read: earthquake) where thousands might gather as they did at the Superdome. She also said that FEMA didn't believe that there would ever be a need for providing water to thousands of people. That tells me volumes about what to expect from FEMA.

Do you remember where you saw that?

I seem to recall FEMA being involved in providing water and food to the various parks where temporary tent cities popped up after the Northridge quake.

Given the general guidelines asking people to have a week of water and food it follows that within a week the people need to be evacuated or the supplies need to arrive or ...

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 1:39am | #

Evade, I was sitting at the bus stop waiting to pick up the kids and I flipped on the radio to AM 640 in LA at 4:00 on Wednesday thinking I'd catch the news. The bus was late and when the news was over John & Ken were interviewing the FEMA Wench who made an abject fool of herself with bureaucratic double speak. I heard it with my own ears. I know those guys are Pitbulls, but sheesh, this woman was lacerated and bleeding. I'm going to look at the KFI (640 LA) site and see if there is a transcript.

Okay, I looked at the site but I didn't see a transcript of the interview. But, I heard it with my own ears.

BTW, she said we (FEMA) recommend three days of water.....

This is off topic, but the kids just made me watch Goonies with them. I gotta say, in the context of today fat kids, Chunk doesn't look very, well, Chunky.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 1:47am | #

Mewsifer, you missed my entire multiple-post tirade about what absolute schmucks the state and local governments are. I think it is only one of a very few times I have used the EFFFFF word in this forum. I was going for balance the other way.

Just for the record I don't see this as GWB's fault or as an act of racism. The government just sucks and when push comes to shove, you better have a .357 and some water stashed somewhere because ain't nobody coming to save you.

This is what I posted on my blog yesterday:

When push comes to shove the cops aren't going to protect you or your property, the government isn't going to save you, and there are very few things you can really count on. Yourself, maybe your immediate family, and possibly your small circle of friends, with the benevolence of strangers running a distant fourth.

It is also instructive to note that while the authorities are brainstorming in meetings (think power struggles and pissing contests) the Salvation Army is serving food and water to desperate people in Biloxi and elsewhere.

If anyone thinks this is just a case of the wrong people running the show, well, you're simple misguided. FEMA will never do it right. They didn't in Fla, they didn't in CA, they didn't in NOLA. That is reality, not racism, not GWB, it is as much a fact of reality as gravity.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 1:48am | #

Super Prole,

Mrs TWC cusses more than she used to.

I'spose that comes from having kids and being married to me.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 1:53am | #

Mewsifer, okay, I guess my rants against the locals are on a couple of different threads. Sorry. For the record, I think the locals screwed up big time.

mewsifer | September 4, 2005, 1:57am | #

"Just for the record I don't see this as GWB's fault or as an act of racism. The government just sucks and when push comes to shove, you better have a .357 and some water stashed somewhere because ain't nobody coming to save you ....
(think power struggles and pissing contests)."

I have to admit this is one of the best comments I've seen around all week.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 1:58am | #

"All you really own is whatever you can carry in two hands at a dead run"—Robert A Heinlein

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 2:02am | #

One more comment spam here...

Good Night, my friends.

It's 11:00 on the west coast, my kids made me watch Goonies for the 11th time in the last 14 months. I'm going to have a glass of wine, kiss MRS TWC goodnight, and crash, because.....

Dude, I'm really tired.

Evade | September 4, 2005, 2:02am | #

Thanks for looking TWC.

Do you recall if the woman was Karen E. Armes? She's listed here as the Acting Regional Director.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 2:05am | #

So I lied....

Thanks Mew, and this is The Wine Commonsewer Communications Network signing offfffffffff

The Wine Commonsewer | September 4, 2005, 2:09am | #

Evade, yes I think it was Karen Ames. The name rings a vague bell and Sector 9 sticks in my mind and she is the head of sector 9.

You know I was just screaming in the car. I was impressed that she kept her cool but she just made an idiot out of herself.

J&K just kept asking her what was so tough about bringing in water to the Superdome with a helo and she kept coming up with the lamest excuses like the fact that the electricity was out and therefore the air traffic control tower was not functioning so they couldn't fly around there because it was too dangerous. It was a truly pathetic performance. I'm sure she got her butt kicked by her bosses afterward.

mewsifer | September 4, 2005, 3:21am | #

Tom,

"Were you aware of Badnarik?"

Yes, certainly; my wife is a serious Libertarian.

I didn't much agree with his foreign policy. But I think there's a second point (old hat around here), which to me isn't a controversy because I think everyone has to solve this their own way: Badnarik wasn't going to win, and Kerry very nearly might have. To me, there is a practical side to voting ...

I also don't agree with you about the "incompetence" of the administration - one also has to measure what they've been faced with for the past 5 years.

Seriously, on foreign policy for example, think of what he was handed ... how many people think Clinton was competent? Their approach to problems was to try to make them appear to go away. Basically they wasted the entire 8 year "strategic pause" as they called it - Iran, Iraq, North Korea, al-Quieda/Afgan., Lybia, etc. were all well known serious problems in the 90's, and they were allowed to sit and fester. All that got handed to GWB, who was promptly blown up 7.5 months into office.

If you have a brain tumor and all that you do for it for 6 months is take advil, the surgeon will have trouble when he goes to cut it out.

As a coda to the voting bit: in 92, if Bush's father had won (which would have happened without Perot), would we be fighting all of these wars?

I think not. Bush Sr. was much too clever to let us get stuck in an 8 year long containment policy as we did.

jw | September 4, 2005, 4:13am | #

"All you really own is whatever you can carry in two hands at a dead run." Robert A. Heinlein.

So like, grab a cheek in each hand and HAUL ASS! right?

But seriously, I have to agree with several on this thread: If you sit on your ass waiting for the government to help you in life, all that you will get is a sore ass...literally and figuratively.

Douglas Fletcher | September 4, 2005, 4:16am | #

Good to see Mayor Daley has something to take his impending indictment off his mind.

jw | September 4, 2005, 5:09am | #

I have voted Libertarian ever since I was old enough to vote, and ever since they ran their first candidate ( Hospers.) Except in the last election when I did not, would not, could not vote at all. Not even for Badnarik. But that's another thread.

Mewsifer, you raise an interesting point: Would we have remained in Iraq for eight years if Bush Sr. had won a second term? Well, would we have even been there in the first place except for him and his predecessor and their policies? And isn't it odd that the Old Man did not seem to care what those monsters in Iraq were doing until they started doing it to some of his personal friends in Kuwait? Equally remarkable is the fact that one of the first things his son did upon taking office was to reseal and reclassify a bunch of his father's and Reagan's papers concerning Iraq.
Cigar Bill wassn't any better; we all know what he was competent at. And Mrs. Co-president was too busy worrying about how to someday become Madame President.
But clearly something needed to be done about Iraq, because it was on its way to becoming a fifty odd year containment policy ala Korea. I do not have any use much for Geprge W., but I can't really fault him much for the war in Iraq. Except, perhaps for the way it was run. (I can hear Joe, "Bush lied!") No, I don't think he did. I think some of his administration and advisors did.

need sleep | September 4, 2005, 7:36am | #

Three days supporting this trainwreck of an operation and no sleep...anyways, I work public affairs, but can't disclose for whom. i'm not assigning blame for any of this, or trying to sway anyone's opinion...been doing enough of the latter for 72 hours now, and I need to vent by being candid.
So, here's the truth. FEMA fucked up. It's taking 7 hours to load 50 patients onto airplanes b/c FEMA can't triage for shit -- let alone coordinate transportation effectively. Aircrews are frustrated as hell because they're being told to fly back across the country after 1 medivac or supply mission, only to be put on alert as soon as they get back. I've talked to many a pissed off pilot in the last few days. I really don't think the blame can be put on the exec level, as all the agencies have been in place, and training regularly, for years. I know how hard FEMA trains, b/c I've covered two of their training exercises. Bottom line? Leadership of FEMA, a delay in Louisiana activating the guard, and logistics that are damn near impossible to work out are where people should be putting the blame.

need sleep | September 4, 2005, 7:39am | #

Red tape is what killed New Orleans.

Mark | September 4, 2005, 11:31am | #

What was needed in NO was a strategy. A strategy is composed of a plan and the execution of the plan. It appears that there was neither of these.

The problem with NO was actually rather well-defined: A city below surrounding water, in a hurricane-prone region. One of the contingencies, I can only assume, was the event that water seek the lowest point, and fills NO until it equalizes with Lake Ponchartrain. Sure there could be other contingencies, but that's gotta be one of them! In that case, the wet and dry areas of the city would be possible to see in advance, as would the probable escape and supply routes. Also to plan for was the thousands staying behind: beg, force, offer money, and have a plan for what to do about the rest. This includes looters, which must have been expected. Why weren't flyer's at least passed out Friday and Saturday?

So there wasn't a plan (or if there was, someone lost in in a file cabinet). No clear delineation of responsibility. If that's not bad enough, then they messed up the execution! Nobody in charge. No communication. No law and order. Total panic. Finger pointing. In America.

This has been the most shameful week of my life. When this is over, Nagin, Blanco, Brown, Chertoff, and Bush should all resign.

mewsifer | September 4, 2005, 12:16pm | #

"But clearly something needed to be done about Iraq, because it was on its way to becoming a fifty odd year containment policy ala Korea. I do not have any use much for Geprge W., but I can't really fault him much for the war in Iraq. Except, perhaps for the way it was run."

I agree with you about our Iraq policy entirely; I was alluding to this in talking about Clinton and the containment policy - part of the reason al-Q exists as it does now is that you can't do North Korea style containment in the middle east by a western power.

My suggestion is Bush sr. would have realized that.

joe | September 4, 2005, 12:29pm | #

"(I can hear Joe, "Bush lied!") No, I don't think he did. I think some of his administration and advisors did."

If only he knew what his people were saying.

Because politicians certainly never take the high ground and let their subordinates take the low as a media strategy. Certainly not when Karl Rove is running your political operation.

Gad, you're a sucker.

jw | September 4, 2005, 1:39pm | #

Joe,
You can sit there and say "Bush lied" over and over again for the next twenty years, in the hope that if you say it enough times, that that will somehow make it true. But saying it's so doesn't make it so, so save your wind.
As for being a sucker, I believe it is you that is employed by a government; not I.
I don't have any more use for the Bushes than I do for any of the Damnocrats. I don't know you, but I'd bet you're one of those that still can't get over the fact that George Bush beat Gore.

Tom Crick | September 4, 2005, 1:44pm | #

Did anyone else see Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, La., break down on Meet the Press today?

You can watch the video here.

It was hard to pick out exactly what he was saying, but am I to understand that the guy whose mother drowned in the nursing home--after calling her son for days asking for help--was in charge of the Parish's emergency response program? ...or do I have that all confused?

Tom Crick | September 4, 2005, 1:54pm | #

"You can sit there and say "Bush lied" over and over again for the next twenty years, in the hope that if you say it enough times, that that will somehow make it true. But saying it's so doesn't make it so, so save your wind."

Did you read joe's comment from September 4, 2005 at 12:29 PM?

...Did you see Colin Powell's testimony before the UN? Did you see the phony photographs of non-existent mobile WMD labs?

"As for being a sucker, I believe it is you that is employed by a government; not I."

If joe worked for Microsoft, would his observations be any less accurate?

"I don't know you, but I'd bet you're one of those that still can't get over the fact that George Bush beat Gore."

If you don't know him, why would you make such a bet? It's almost like you're arguing against a stawman joe, and strawman joe only exists in your head.

...and even if joe is one of those people that can't get over the fact that Bush beat Gore, how would that make his points any less valid?

mewsifer | September 4, 2005, 2:51pm | #

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200401261431.asp

The world is full of suckers.

If you don't trust NRO feel free to pull the Congressional Record; you'll might also enjoy finding speechs by Sandy Berger (to C.F.R. perhaps?), Tony Lake, and President Clinton himself from the same era.

jw | September 4, 2005, 3:32pm | #

"and even if Joe is one of those people who can't get over the fact that Bush beat Gore, how would that make his points any less valid?"

It wouldn't, of course. How does his calling me a "sucker" make his point any MORE valid?!

And yes, Tom Crick, I saw Joe's comment from 4 Sept. etc. Jesus! I refered to it, didn't I?

As for taking a bet without knowing the man, most bets are made on intuition or a hunch. I think that's why it's called gambling. I've been reading Joe's tired and tiresome diatribe about Bush almost daily for months on this site, so I think I can formulate a pretty good hunch. Any other questions?

jw | September 4, 2005, 3:47pm | #

Before I forget, on the subject of Colin Powel: A Barbara Walters interview with him is supposed to be on broadcast television either tonight or sometime this week. It should prove interesting, if it is not a rerun.

drf | September 4, 2005, 5:26pm | #

hi NRO readers. which article didja click to get here?

joe | September 4, 2005, 6:22pm | #

Yes, I admit it, I've been saying terrible, anti-Bush things for years.

I said he was lying when he told us we were threatened by nukes and germ bombs from Iraq.

I said he was going to fuck up the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I said he, and top people in his administration, established pro-torture policies that allowed Abu Ghraib to happen.

I said John Kerry was a legitimate war hero, and didn't deserve to be slandered.

I said the administration was giving sweetheart contracts to Haliburton and covering it up.

I said that they weren't taking the essential responsibilities of government seriously, and putting party hacks in charge of operations that needed to be handled by career experts.

So you can pretty much dismiss whatever I have to say about George Bush, since my partisan blinders are obviously interfering with my perception of reality.

joe | September 4, 2005, 6:35pm | #

On Grover Norquist: "We want to make government just small enough that we can drown in a bathtub."

Blub blub blub.

Can somebody remind me of what I said on September 4?

Tom Crick | September 4, 2005, 10:37pm | #

"And yes, Tom Crick, I saw Joe's comment from 4 Sept. etc. Jesus! I refered to it, didn't I?

Here's joe's comment:

"(I can hear Joe, "Bush lied!") No, I don't think he did. I think some of his administration and advisors did."

...

----Comment by: joe at September 4, 2005 12:29 PM

Here's jw's response:

"You can sit there and say "Bush lied" over and over again for the next twenty years, in the hope that if you say it enough times, that that will somehow make it true. But saying it's so doesn't make it so, so save your wind."

...

----Posted by jw at September 4, 2005 01:39 PM

So in response to:

"I refered to it, didn't I?"

...I would have to say, no--you didn't refer to joe's comment. You referred to the comments of strawman joe. ...But you have to understand that none of the rest of us can see, hear or quote strawman joe, 'cause he only exists in your head.

jw | September 5, 2005, 6:45am | #

(My apologies to all for not returning to this thread sooner; I have to sleep now and then)

Tom Crick,
Are you blind? You asked me if I had seen Joe's post at 4 Sep.,12:29 pm. Well here it is,the relevant part anyway; if you prefer, scroll back up and look for yourself:

[If only he knew what his people were saying. Because politicians certainly never take the high ground and let their subordinates take the low as a media strategy. Certainly not when Carl Rove is running your political operation. Gad! You're a sucker! Comment by: Joe at September 4, 2005 12:29 pm]

Here is MY reply, MY post which appeared just after Joe's; again, the relevant part of it(at 4 Sep., 1:39 pm):

[As for being a sucker, I believe it is you that is employed by a government; not I.]

Now, doesn't that pretty much look like I was replying to Joe's post? Wouldn't that lead most people to believe that I had, therefore, READ his post?! Furthermore, Crick, the statement you quote as being Joe's, namely: [(I can hear Joe,"Bush lied")No, I don't think he did. I think some of his administration and advisors did.]....well I believe that was MY statement; was it not? Scroll back up and look! Good God, man, learn to read and stop embarrassing yourself.

And one last thing (then I am done with this particular thread):
Joe's sarcastic statement about politicians' media stategy is just an insinuation that BUSH LIED and let his subordinates take the heat for it. Hell, that just demonstrates my point, namely, that Joe just says the same old tired thought over and over, this time using different words. Restatement of a thought is not a validation of its truth or accuracy. You anti-Bush Democrats and Liberals see a "vast right wing conspiracy" behind every bush. Why not brush-up on Occam's Razor sometime?

Andrew Ian Dodge | September 5, 2005, 12:05pm | #

Last time I checked FEMA is under the control of Congress not the President.

Dynamist | September 5, 2005, 3:00pm | #

my partisan blinders are obviously interfering with my perception of reality.

Your perception of reality is shaped by your partisan blinders. You, me, everyone, see what we want to see. None of us has a stranglehold on truth. Ignoring this limit and insisting your truth, your answer is the only valid interpretation seems arrogant. We all suffer more when your guesses are enforced by coercion on those who guess differently.

crimethink | September 5, 2005, 6:08pm | #

mewsifer,

Oh, please. I'm no fan of Clinton, but it's not like Bush hit the ground running on those problems after his inauguration. His #1 military priority until 9/11 was shoring up our missile defense systems; he did nothing more than Clinton had as far as al-Qaeda was concerned.

mewsifer | September 5, 2005, 11:53pm | #

Crimethink,

Yes, you are correct. However, Bush had been in power 7.5 months whereas Clinton had been in power for 8 years. I believe it's a correct statement (if you want links I'll go find them) to say he wasn't even done installing lower level appointees.

Bottom line: no administration is up-and-running in less than about a year.

Moreover, we we're first attacked by al-Q stateside in 1993 - that gave Clinton something like 7 years.

Not comparable.

On BMD, a small country like, for example, North Korea can effectively do 50 New Orleans in 20 minutes with a tiny missile force - which they virtually can build now. Wouldn't you like to have some deterrent available (esp. after watching this disaster of a hurricane + response) other than, "well KJI, if you blow us up, we'll blow you up too" ?

Clinton, to his credit, never cut our BMD research. Perhaps you recall that he visited Putin in 2000 to discuss ways to modify the ABM treaty (which didn't go well), but decided to leave it to his successor (once again).