New Orleans - The beginning of the end?

[John Dolva]

Nast stuff to be sure..quite amazingly mindboggling watching it unfold from down under. Reminds me a bit of Nero. Bush seems to be more concerned about plastering up the crack than feeling anything about the poor folk down south.

[Tim Gratz]

I have noted previously how often some left-oriented posters seem to delight in impugning the motives of those who oppose their positions (as if they had the ability to read the opponent's mind to judge his or her sinccerity).

I hope you notice that I have refrained from suggesting that those who have posted criticisms of the federal government's response to Katrina are motivated by their hatred of all things Bush rather than a sincere concern for the victims of this tragedy. In fact, I go so far as to assume that most of the posters have in fact demonstrated their sincere concern by making the largest contribution they can afford to an appropriate relief organization.

For those who have not yet done so, I suggest you review the article on how to help Katrina victims at the web-site of a prominent organization that rates the efficiency of charities:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Edited September 4, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

I hope you notice that I have refrained from suggesting that those who have posted criticisms of the federal government's response to Katrina are motivated by their hatred of all things Bush rather than a sincere concern for the victims of this tragedy.

SOOOOOOOOO predictable Tim. We are very concerned for these victims. It is the inaction of head of the federal government- while these poor souls rot and DIE- that we are all upset by.

But those of you who are totally "blinded by the right" could not ever hope to understand that.

And believe me we are and will be contributing to the various charities, and helping in any way we can. Et vous??

At least Pat Robertson got a prayer answered last night with the death of the chief justice. And don't say he was having his 700 club pray for "retirement". He prayed that God would provide openings for W to fill on the court. God does not bring about "retirement", that's a personal choice. God takes people "home". That is the ONLY interpretation of that particular prayer of Pat Robertson.

America and the world is seeing up close and personal just what "compassionate conservative" means in action, or rather INaction, here in the USA.

As for FEMA, I saw an article about the directer yesterday, Brown . It was a political appointment. He had NO prior experience or qualifications for this job, was simply a Republican hack who had been fired from his prior job. Ya heads will roll allright, but what happened to "the buck stops here?"

Dawn

[John Simkin]

I have noted previously how often some left-oriented posters seem to delight in impugning the motives of those who oppose their positions (as if they had the ability to read the opponent's mind to judge his or her sinccerity).

I hope you notice that I have refrained from suggesting that those who have posted criticisms of the federal government's response to Katrina are motivated by their hatred of all things Bush rather than a sincere concern for the victims of this tragedy.  In fact, I go so far as to assume that most of the posters have in fact demonstrated their sincere concern by making the largest contribution they can afford to an appropriate relief organization.

This is indeed a problem of ideology. People in Europe believe in a welfare state where no one falls below a certain level. This is a expensive policy and needs high levels of progressive taxation. It is the sort of taxation that you have said several times on the forum that you are very much against. It is this level of taxation and the resulting government protection it provides that makes countries civilized. It is no coincidence that America responds to natural disasters like a third world country. That is why it relies on calls for charity donations in times of crisis. That is what third world countries have to do at times like that. What we know is that charity is not the way to solve these problems. Research shows that rich people and rich countries are always the meanest when it comes to giving charity. I suspect America will get a poor response from its calls for help. People will understandably say, why has the American government been spending billions of dollars in invading other countries when it cannot afford to protect its own citizens.

It is also noted that it was not long ago that only recently the American people elected this moron to remain in office for another four years. I suppose therefore that Bush’s values reflects those of the American people. That means you have a government that refused to help the poor people get out of New Orleans. As they have been telling us on the television and in the newspapers, they did not have the money to get out of New Orleans. As they also pointed out, where would they go when they got out of the city. They don’t have money to stay in motels. They also claimed they would not have been made to feel welcome outside of New Orleans. What does that tell us about American society?

In an European country the government would have paid to evacuate the people of New Orleans. They would have also paid for their accommodation while away from home. That is why we have a welfare state? It is not for the rich. It is for the poor who do not have the money to protect themselves from situations like this.

As you know, I constantly find your moral judgements totally repulsive. Another example of your moral code can be found on the thread on Abortion and Nazi Germany.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3566

I find the moral code of your leader equally repulsive. This is reflected in his decision to redirect funding away from building up the defences of New Orleans. Bush is also an incompetent politician. First he continues his holiday at the beginning of the crisis. Then he appears and with that repulsive smirk of his, makes completely inappropriate comments. Then it takes him five days to get people stranded in places like the New Orleans Convention Centre. Yet, as Tony Allen-Mills, wrote in today’s Sunday Times, he had no difficulty driving to the centre after the disaster had taken place. If he could do it, why couldn’t they have got buses and helicopters into the area?

Soon after the 1927 flood in New Orleans the people voted into power Huey Long whose campaign slogan was “Share the Wealth”. I expect something similar will happen this time. If I was one of the right-wing millionaires concerned with keeping my wealth, I would at this moment be secretly plotting the removal of George Bush from office. He is so incompetent he poses a real threat to the power elite in America.

[Ron Ecker]

As for FEMA, I saw an article about the directer yesterday, Brown .  It was a political appointment.  He had NO prior experience or qualifications  for this job, was simply a Republican hack who had been fired from his prior job. Ya heads will roll allright, but what happened to "the buck stops here?"

Whose head will roll? That'll be a first. Name one head that rolled after 9/11. All I saw were promotions. As for FEMA's Brown, the MIC (moron in chief, not military industrial complex) told Brown on national TV, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." Not exactly what they call reality TV.

Ron

[Mark Stapleton]

I have noted previously how often some left-oriented posters seem to delight in impugning the motives of those who oppose their positions (as if they had the ability to read the opponent's mind to judge his or her sinccerity).

I hope you notice that I have refrained from suggesting that those who have posted criticisms of the federal government's response to Katrina are motivated by their hatred of all things Bush rather than a sincere concern for the victims of this tragedy.  In fact, I go so far as to assume that most of the posters have in fact demonstrated their sincere concern by making the largest contribution they can afford to an appropriate relief organization.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is indeed a problem of ideology. People in Europe believe in a welfare state where no one falls below a certain level. This is a expensive policy and needs high levels of progressive taxation. It is the sort of taxation that you have said several times on the forum that you are very much against. It is this level of taxation and the resulting government protection it provides that makes countries civilized. It is no coincidence that America responds to natural disasters like a third world country. That is why it relies on calls for charity donations in times of crisis. That is what third world countries have to do at times like that. What we know is that charity is not the way to solve these problems. Research shows that rich people and rich countries are always the meanest when it comes to giving charity. I suspect America will get a poor response from its calls for help. People will understandably say, why has the American government been spending billions of dollars in invading other countries when it cannot afford to protect its own citizens.

It is also noted that it was not long ago that only recently the American people elected this moron to remain in office for another four years. I suppose therefore that Bush’s values reflects those of the American people. That means you have a government that refused to help the poor people get out of New Orleans. As they have been telling us on the television and in the newspapers, they did not have the money to get out of New Orleans. As they also pointed out, where would they go when they got out of the city. They don’t have money to stay in motels. They also claimed they would not have been made to feel welcome outside of New Orleans. What does that tell us about American society?

In an European country the government would have paid to evacuate the people of New Orleans. They would have also paid for their accommodation while away from home. That is why we have a welfare state? It is not for the rich. It is for the poor who do not have the money to protect themselves from situations like this.

As you know, I constantly find your moral judgements totally repulsive. Another example of your moral code can be found on the thread on Abortion and Nazi Germany.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3566

I find the moral code of your leader equally repulsive. This is reflected in his decision to redirect funding away from building up the defences of New Orleans. Bush is also an incompetent politician. First he continues his holiday at the beginning of the crisis. Then he appears and with that repulsive smirk of his, makes completely inappropriate comments. Then it takes him five days to get people stranded in places like the New Orleans Convention Centre. Yet, as Tony Allen-Mills, wrote in today’s Sunday Times, he had no difficulty driving to the centre after the disaster had taken place. If he could do it, why couldn’t they have got buses and helicopters into the area?

Soon after the 1927 flood in New Orleans the people voted into power Huey Long whose campaign slogan was “Share the Wealth”. I expect something similar will happen this time. If I was one of the right-wing millionaires concerned with keeping my wealth, I would at this moment be secretly plotting the removal of George Bush from office. He is so incompetent he poses a real threat to the power elite in America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very good post, John. The slackness of the US Government's response to this crisis does a great disservice to the American people. The reason for the slackness, of course, is because most of those stranded in New Orleans have no money. The damage to President Bush's credibility is terminal, IMO. The entire episode has become an international embarrassment. Ironically, nature itself has revealed George Bush and his support base for what they are.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

1. As the separate and independent State of Louisiana, the state and it's officials are responsible for operations such as the evacuation of personnel from an area which is in potential harms way.

1. The Mayor of New Orleans must ask assistance from the Governor of the State of Louisiana.

2. The Governor of the State of Louisiana, must ask assistance from the President of the United States.

As the Mayor of New Orleans, it was this person's responsiblity to dictate and enforce evacuation of the potentially hazardous area.

In the event that the Mayor did not have those resources to accomplish the task, then this person was responsible to go to the Governor of the State.

The National Guard belongs to the state in which it is stationed. For those who are not aware of it, this is the reason that it is called the " Louisiana National Guard", the "Mississippi National Guard", etc; etc; etc.

The Governor of the State is in fact the Commander in Chief of that state's National Guard, and has to authority to mobilize the State National Guard for any reason which the Governor deams necessary.

Therefore, the Governor of the State of Louisiana had the authority to mobilize the Louisiana National Guard at any time, even prior to, impact of the Hurricane.

The Louisiana National Guard could have been in place in New Orleans prior to impact of the hurricane, and could have assisted in enforcement of evacuation orders as WERE GIVEN to those residents of New Orleans who chose to remain behind.

So! Exactly why did the Mayor of New Orleans NOT request that the Governor of the State of Louisiana mobilize the National Guard and send them to New Orleans?

Why? did the Governor of the State of Louisiana, not mobilize the Louisiana National Guard, and send them to New Orleans, with, or without consent of the Mayor of New Orleans?

The United States Government can mobilize (Federalize) the National Guard of the respective states of the Union ONLY>ONLY>ONLY>>ONLY, in a STATE OF EMERGENCY.

Other than that, it is entirely the responsibility of the Governor of each state to Utilize the services of the National Guard to that states specific benefit.

The President of the United States does not have the authority to Mobilize the National Guard of the various states of the Union unless a state of emergency or national emergency is declared.

To do so would violate the separation of powers between the individual states of the union as opposed to the Federal Government.

Which by the way, the individual "States Rights" groups have held onto adamantly.

Now, exactly why did the Governor of the State of Louisiana sit by and wait?

MONEY!

In event the Governor of the State of Louisiana decides to mobilize the Louisiana National Guard to go to New Orleans to assist in evacuation and population control, then, in all probability, the State of Louisiana may have to pay for the salary and expense of these actions, unless for some reason, the Federal Government decides to reimburse Louisiana.

By sitting on their ass and waiting until the "NATIONAL EMERGENCY" is an absolute fact, and the Federal Government has declared the event, then the State of Louisiana does not have to pay any of the bill/cost of the National Guard Units which are MOBILIZED by the Federal Government.

So, until such time as one understands the constitutional separation of powers between the State and Federal Government, to include the power which the Governor of each state has over it's National Guard units, and what it takes for the President of the United States to be able to legally and constitutionally take charge/command of the Militia of an independent state of the Union, then any attempt to "Point the Finger of Blame", must begin with the Mayor of New Orleans, LA and therefore trace backwards through the State of Louisiana and it's own emergency management system (or lack thereof) to include exactly why the State of Louisiana sat on their ass and allowed those persons to remain in a declared "evacuation zone" with no attempt made by State and local authorities to enforce this mandatory ordered evacuation.

Tom

P.S. Don't forget to look at the devastation along the Biloxi/Gulfport, MS coastline.

Yet, by comparison, exactly how many deaths have occurred there.

Had not those persons of local and state government recognized what could have happened, and thereafter ordered and ENFORCED evacuation of this area, then the MS Coast would have a death toll in the thousands as well.

And, even then, we still had on a much smaller scale, the looting, etc; of the New Orleans area.

As one who, in the MS National Guard, was mobilized by the STATE Governor in 1965 and sent to the Biloxi/Gulfport, MS coast during a hurricane hit in 1965, I, along with the MS coast survivors of this as well as Camile in later years, know to get the hell out of coastal areas in a hurricane.

Of course, I also had to drive to the coast to evacuate one of those "ding-a-lings" and her three children who did not have the sense to, and ignored the evacuation order.

[Ron Ecker]

The damage to President Bush's credibility is terminal, IMO.

No, I think that columnist David Broder is probably correct that this catastrophe presents Bush with an opportunity to regain lost political capital. IOW Bush is going to come out of this smelling like a rose.

Do not underestimate the brilliance of Bush's handlers, the power of the government's media lackeys, and the stubborn sheepishness of the American people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5090301005.html

Ron

[Ron Ecker]

Tom,

There's certainly plenty of blame to go around. But what about the nation's "emergency" organization FEMA? Brown actually admitted, yea insisted, on national TV that FEMA did not know until THURSDAY that there were people stranded, yea dying, at the NO convention center. The whole world had watched the situation at the convention center on TV for a couple of days.

One would think, with the generous budget that I'm sure FEMA has at the Dept of Homeland Security, that they could afford a couple of TV sets, or that Brown and his top aides at FEMA at least have TVs at home.

Ron

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,

There's certainly plenty of blame to go around. But what about the nation's "emergency" organization FEMA? Brown actually admitted, yea insisted, on national TV that FEMA did not know until THURSDAY that there were people stranded, yea dying, at the NO convention center. The whole world had watched the situation at the convention center on TV for a couple of days.

One would think, with the generous budget that I'm sure FEMA has at the Dept of Homeland Security, that they could afford a couple of TV sets, or that Brown and his top aides at FEMA at least have TVs at home.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The hands of the Federal Government are virtually "tied", until such time as either the Governor of any given state requests assistance, or until such time as a "State of Emergency" has been declared.

FEMA is there to coordinate the efforts of Federal Assistance with what should be the already inplace State Emergency Management System.

Obviously, New Orleans specifically, and the State of Louisiana in general, did not have much in the way of an effective Emergency Management or Emergency Response ability.

Not unlike some "General" in the Army, the head of FEMA can not of his own volition just decide to attack.

He can recommend to the President, however, the President is bound by the laws of the land, which preclude him from intervention into the internal affairs of any of the 50-states, unless a full emergency is declared.

In event the Federal Government intervenes into the internal affairs of any state without the request of the Governor of that State, or without a declared state of emergency, then the Federal Government is in violation of those laws which give the individual states their soverignty.

Such was the case of the Civil Riots of the 1960's, when, without authorization of the individual states, JFK Federalized the National Guard of each individual state and thereafter utilized the citizens of the state as the police force to secure integration.

Once nationalized (Federalized), the National Guard falls directly under the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. (The President), and thereafter the Governor of the State has no authority over the specific National Guard of his state.

Until such "Federalization", the President of the US has no military command and/or control of the specific State National Guard, and he has no rights to send even the active U.S. Army into a Soverign State within the Union unless requested to do so by the Governor of that State.

To do so places him in violation of the separation of our State and Federal laws.

So, the question lies in exactly at what point, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, requested from the Federal Government, assistance.

And, even then, the Louisiana National Guard was at the complete disposal of the Governor of the State of Louisiana, and therefore one must also ask exactly why he, as the Commander of this "Louisiana Militia" did not activite these units and send them into New Orleans in order to protect life and property.

[Ron Ecker]

The hands of the Federal Government are virtually "tied", until such time as either the Governor of any given state requests assistance, or until such time as a "State of Emergency" has been declared.

I realize that, which wasn't exactly my point. FEMA's Brown having his hands tied is different from him revealing on national TV that he's an idiot to begin with. Or, as columnist Maureen Dowd has put it, a "blithering idiot." Why is this man running FEMA? It must be because he and Bush are obviously kindred spirits.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,

There's certainly plenty of blame to go around. But what about the nation's "emergency" organization FEMA? Brown actually admitted, yea insisted, on national TV that FEMA did not know until THURSDAY that there were people stranded, yea dying, at the NO convention center. The whole world had watched the situation at the convention center on TV for a couple of days.

One would think, with the generous budget that I'm sure FEMA has at the Dept of Homeland Security, that they could afford a couple of TV sets, or that Brown and his top aides at FEMA at least have TVs at home.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As we speak, as post, an excellent news program is being broadcast on Biloxi, MS Channel 13 TV in regards to the MS National Guard and how they were "mobilized" by the Governor of the State of MS, and actually had persons in place on the MS coast (Biloxi/Gulfport) some two days prior to impact of hurricane Katrina.

The State of MS is quite experienced in these hurricane events, and in fact we have/had already "dodged the bullet" of two other hurricanes this season which were head to us and veered off.

Nevertheless, a MS National Guard, one-star General just finished explaining to the news media, exactly what I have just stated.

Notice that you hear little of the complaints from the MS coast?, and yet we have entire communities which were hit with a "tsunami" 27-foot high wall of water.

Our State and Local officials declared an evacuation zone, and then enforced it.

There were several hundred thousand persons who were absolutely "forced" into leaving there homes despite their protests.

Bet next time they will not protest.

And, we had a harder time than most, as we have gone through this same drill two times in the past year, with the hurricanes veering off and not striking us.

Many, not unlike in New Orleans, wanted to "play the odds", and lost.

No doubt, you have seen photo's on the news of the President Casino across coast highway 90, as well as the Grand Casino which now sits in the middle of Highway 90.

Well, these casino's are constructed on floating barges which are supposed to be pulled into the backwaters of Biloxi Bay in order to protect them from the incoming waves.

The Casino Managment also played the odds and did not move them back into the protected waters.

They lost!

Is the Federal Government to blame for not coming down and holding a gun to the head of the Casino Management and ordering them to move these floating barges back into the backwaters as was and has always been the plan?

Our Democratic system gives each and every one of us the full right to act as ignorant and stupid as one wishes, until directed otherwise.

The State of MS, directed an "evacuation zone", and then to the extent possible, fully enforced these actions.

Those who ignored the request and directions were left, however, our officials ask that they fill out paperwork for notification of "Next-of-Kin".

Which usually gets their attention!

This is why, during hurrican Camile, some years ago, approximately 30 persons were killed in a single beach-front condominium on the MS Coast.. They decided to stay and have a "hurricane party".

Hope that they enjoyed it, as it was their last!

The concrete slab of the condominiom, not unlike the shrimp boat of the same storm, provides a visual reminder of what can happen.

Anyone who has ever driven Highway 90, along the MS Coast, could still see these, and it makes even the most stupid persons take notice.

This storm is considered to have been 3 to 5 times more devastating than was the Camile storm of years past.

The MS Gulf Coast has quadrupled in coastal population.

Yet, proportionally, we suffered far fewer casualties and problems than in any past event.

Of course, our State Emergency Management and our State National Guard were placed into service by the Governor, and their coordination with the Mayor's of Pascagoula, MS;/ Gautier, MS;/ Ocean Springs, MS;/ Biloxi, MS.;/ Gulfport, MS:/

DeIberville, MS;/ etc; etc; etc; was virtually complete and in place prior to storm impact.

We may be country folk down here, but for the most part we are neither stupid, nor do we like to have to tred water for more than a day at a time.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I have noted previously how often some left-oriented posters seem to delight in impugning the motives of those who oppose their positions (as if they had the ability to read the opponent's mind to judge his or her sinccerity).

I hope you notice that I have refrained from suggesting that those who have posted criticisms of the federal government's response to Katrina are motivated by their hatred of all things Bush rather than a sincere concern for the victims of this tragedy.  In fact, I go so far as to assume that most of the posters have in fact demonstrated their sincere concern by making the largest contribution they can afford to an appropriate relief organization.

For those who have not yet done so, I suggest you review the article on how to help Katrina victims at the web-site of a prominent organization that rates the efficiency of charities:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim;

I also had the experience in the early 70's of weathering out one of these which brushed against Key West.

This was long prior to the four-lane capability of evacuation.

We rode this one out in the concrete block buildings beside the "Hawk" Missile Battery out on Fleming Key off the NAS Annex facility.

Certainly got my attention!

Also has to do with why I live 35-miles inland from any "coast zone".

Tom

[Mark Knight]

Congress Likely to Probe Guard Response

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

Sat Sep 3, 6:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Another 10,000 National Guard troops are being sent to the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, raising their number to about 40,000, but questions linger about the speed with which troops were deployed.

Several states ready and willing to send National Guard troops to the rescue in New Orleans didn't get the go-ahead until days after the storm struck — a delay nearly certain to be investigated by Congress.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco help from his state's National Guard last Sunday, the day before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. Blanco accepted, but paperwork needed to get the troops en route didn't come from Washington until late Thursday.

California troops just began arriving in Louisiana on Friday, three days after flood waters devastated New Orleans and chaos broke out.

In fact, when New Orleans' levees gave way to deadly flooding on Tuesday, Louisiana's National Guard had received help from troops in only three other states: Ohio, which had nine people in Louisiana then; Oklahoma, 89; and Texas, 625, figures provided by the National Guard show.

Maj. Gen. Thomas Cutler, who leads the Michigan National Guard, said he anticipated a call for police units and started preparing them, but couldn't go until states in the hurricane zone asked them to come.

"We could have had people on the road Tuesday," Cutler said. "We have to wait and respond to their need."

The Michigan National Guard was asked for military police by Mississippi late Tuesday and by Louisiana officials late Wednesday. The state sent 182 MPs to Mississippi on Friday and had 242 headed to Louisiana on Saturday.

Typically, the authority to use the National Guard in a state role lies with the governor, who tells his or her adjutant general to order individual Guard units to begin duty. Turnaround time varies depending on the number of troops involved, their location and their assigned missions.

One factor that may have further complicated post-Katrina deployment arose when Louisiana discovered it needed Guardsmen to do more law enforcement duty because a large portion of the New Orleans police force was not functioning, according to Lt. Gen. Steven H. Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon.

Because the agreement that was already in existence for states to contribute Guard troops to Louisiana did not include a provision on their use in law enforcement, Blum said, Gov. Blanco had to get separate written agreements authorizing Guardsmen to do police-type duty.

Still, Blum said, this took only minutes to execute.

With many states' Guard units depleted by deployments to Iraq, Katrina's aftermath was almost certain from the beginning to require help from faraway states.

Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress are just beginning to ask why one of the National Guard's most trusted roles — disaster relief — was so uneven, delayed and chaotic this time around.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., said the situation has shown major breakdowns in the nation's emergency response capabilities. "There must be some accountability in this process after the crisis is addressed," he said.

Democrat Ben Nelson, Nebraska's other senator, said he now questions National Guard leaders' earlier assertions that they had enough resources to respond to natural disasters even with the Iraq war.

"I'm going to ask that question again," Nelson said. "Do we have enough (troops), and if we do, why were they not deployed sooner?"

President Bush was asked that question Friday as he toured the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast area and said he disagrees with criticism the military is stretched too thin.

"We've got a job to defend this country in the war on terror, and we've got a job to bring aid and comfort to the people of the Gulf Coast, and we'll do both," he said.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., plans to make oversight of the Defense Department, the National Guard and their assistance his top priority when he returns to Washington next week from an overseas trips, spokesman John Ullyot said Friday.

Bush had the legal authority to order the National Guard to the disaster area himself, as he did after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks . But the troops four years ago were deployed for national security protection, and presidents of both parties traditionally defer to governors to deploy their own National Guardsmen and request help from other states when it comes to natural disasters.

In addition to Guard help, the federal government could have activated, but did not, a major air support plan under a pre-existing contract with airlines. The program, called Civilian Reserve Air Fleet, lets the government quickly put private cargo and passenger planes into service.

The CRAF provision has been activated twice, once for the Persian Gulf War and again for the Iraq war.

___

Interesting stuff...especially about the New Mexico National Guard being offered and accepted on SUNDAY, but not getting their OK from Washington until THURSDAY. I don't believe the NO mayor or the Louisiana governor were either one in Washington holding up the issuance of those orders...do you?

Edited September 4, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I am amazed at the lack of federal assistance. Maybe I'm being naive, or maybe I don't fully understand the problem, but it seems like a leader (GWB or anyone else) would mobilze the military to assist our citizens. There is no entity on earth more equipped, more capable of going in there with boats, amphibious vehicles, troops, trucks, helicopters, bulldozers, engineers, heavy equipment, etc. in massive numbers and getting things done. I mean, the military has NO trouble setting up shop on the other side of the globe and conducting massive operations, but we can't do anything significant to help our own citizens? What a sign of the times. It's interesting that, although I put most of the responsibility for this on GWB, I don't hear any democrats speaking out either. Sad, strange, disturbing, and embarrassing. For all the politics and nastiness that goes on between the right and the left here, you'd think that something like this would appeal to leaders on both sides of the aisle on a human level. We seem to have plenty of "leaders" when its time to raise money, campaign, or attack the other party. If there was ever a time someone needed to step up and lead, it's now. But all we get are boxes of food, fly overs, and bold statements. And silence. Tragic and embarrassing.

Hopefully, that changes soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all

I am sure one of the reasons for the slowness of deploying troops is the reason that the troops are fully stretched because of the deployment in Iraq. On the other hand, the scale of the disaster was unanticipated and the federal government, particularly under Mr Bush, has put disaster preparation and environmental concerns on the back burner.

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They have been "preaching" for years what would happen to that portions of New Orleans which was below sea level, in the event of a major hurricane having hit.

Everyone who has ever been there and understands, knows, that when standing in the French you are below sea level.

They have chosen to ignore that basic fact!

Please recall that New Orleans was on the "Left"/Eastern side of the storm and was therefore spared the brunt of the water/storm surge.

They have been told and told again!

Yet, they chose to ignore the warnings which come each and every year during hurricane season.

And, it is not just once per year, as we have several hurricanes per year.

Had the eye of the hurricane passed to the West of New Orleans, it is not likely that a body recovery effort would have been of much use, except at sea.

Florida, long ago learned not to ignore the potential.

The Mississippi & Alabama coastal communities have learned this as well.

New Orleans has escaped many times and therefore they have assumed that they were exempt from such storms.

As regards the "slowness" of deployment of "troops", the President of the US can not send federalized troops into a soverign state unless requested to do so by the Governor of that State, or upon declaration of a National Emergency.

The "potential" for a National Emergency does not of itself provide adequate reason for the National Guard of any soverign state to be Federalized by order of the President of the US.