Redstate

Please keep up updated, also remember ... the local Wal Mart might not have time or facility to contact their parent company right away ... and might have not really wanted to alert the headquarters that they planned to give stuff away.

Reporters were probably handier .. but I'm speculating.

Uhhh ... I tried to recomend this entry, but got fouled up and wound up with "unrecommend" I'd actually like to know a little more about the red tape ...

Anyway, meant to recommend.

Does my calling Broussard into question qualify for asome physical abuse from Senator Landrieu?  If so, I'll need someone to operate a videocam for me.

UPDATE:  Sharon Weber of Wal-Mart called back.  She said that last week, FEMA diverted those water trucks to "another location, which [FEMA] felt was in greater need than where they were headed."  Weber emphasized that Wal-Mart would not override any FEMA decisions made in emergency situations.

So Broussard, who claimed that Wal-Mart's aid was ourtight rejected, was wrong.  Based on Wal-Mart's information, their trucks were taken where FEMA thought they were needed most.

It would appear that the same story occurred with the Coast Guard fuel issue.  Broussard said that FEMA wouldn't release the fuel to Jefferson Parish - but surely that fuel went somewhere else it was needed.

Thanks to Wal-Mart's Sharon Weber for tracking down this information.

thanks for digging and finding this out. Now the question is, will this filter through the MSM?

I doubt it - unless RS'ers work to spread this information further.

The fact that Broussard was wrong about this suggests his information on onther points was wrong as well.  The MSM should have fact-checked his story two days ago.  It took me all of two phone calls, lasting a few minutes each, to get this information.      thanks to the power of the Internet, this part of the truth can now get out.

What's the "another location"?  How can you claim that this invalidates Broussard's claim? You don't know where the water trucks went.

Where are the "facts" here?

All we have is the word of a Wal-Mart employee who says, basically, that Broussard was correct.  Wal-Mart's truck(s) were diverted from where they were going.

Where did they go and why is still the big question.

Hope this doesn't get me banned.

Since I fixed it for you this time, that you'll try harder next?

:)

... the last two days or so I've seen some questioning by FNC folks about some of the statements made by people. I think it was this morning (the coverage has all run together by now) I saw Steve Doucy question some officials about where the NOPD was, reports of the number of "officers" who simply walked off the job,  etc.

"Hope this doesn't get me banned."

this would be the only phrase in your post that might get you banned (not by me, I don't have that power)....just kidding

lighten up a little  :)

... isn't necessarily wrong or misconduct. If teh FEMA folks thought the supplies were needed somewhere else more urgently or maybe they knew that water was being airlifted in to the city so the trucks weren' really necessary and could access some other area where air support was not as good.

There are dozens of possible reasons why they'd send the trucks somewhere else. But some people are out looking for scalps so rational decisions made on the spur of the moment in a crisis are no longer valid.

Um, unless I'm reading Broussard's comments incorrectly and your comments incorrectly, it doesn't appear that Broussard's statement was in error.

Broussard, from your link said of the Wal-Mart aid:

"We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them."

You say:

"So Broussard, who claimed that Wal-Mart's aid was OUTRIGHT REJECTED [my emphasis], was wrong.  Based on Wal-Mart's information, their trucks were taken where FEMA thought they were needed most."

Broussard, according to your quote, did NOT say they were "outright rejected". Rather he said the same thing you just said: "FEMA turned them back" - presumably elsewhere "FEMA thought they were needed most."

You then use your information from Wal-Mart (which is some nice bit of reporting, I might add) to conclude that the same thing happened with the Coast Guard fuel. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.  But as far as I can tell, you have no confirmation on that.

I admit the Coast Guard thing is pure speculation on my part.  But Broussard essentially used these episodes to claim that FEMA was obstructing the relief effort in general, without any recognition that other areas might be in need more dire than his.  The example of how he exaggerated the Wal-Mart episode - which, in context, is clearly what happened, whether intentioanlly or not - calls for more diligent investigation into his other claims.

Right now the rabid left is trumpeting Broussard's claims as evidence that FEMA just left Jefferson Parish to die, and did so with malice.  The left has read into the Broussard story exactly the emphasis I gave it.  If they understood the reality of what happened - prioritization, rather than refusal - I doubt there would be as much outrage as there was.

Remember, Broussard was crying during this interview.  That's not the emotions of someone who's complaining about reprioritization.  Your opinion may differ, but you're one of the few who interprests Broussard's comments that way.

So explain why they cut emergency phone lines while they were being used?  Was it to limit the amount of BAD NEWS coming out of the area?  Rhetorical question no excuse would be sufficent.

it appears as if a lot of "stories" are floating around out there, and you would think reporters would do their jobs and actually try to confirm.

One thing interesting here is that in a hurricane relief effort much of the aid is triaged, therefore while you may think you have a serious need, the triage folks, may say it isn't as bad as somebody else's.

Apparantly FEMA was playing triage nurse.

plan on adding anything of substance?

...maybe should be changed to: "How I (mikewas) interpreted what Broussard said."

Broussard said water trucks were on thier way to one location and were turned away.  That's a fact.  The Wal-Mart respresentative confirmed it.

Until you know where those trucks went and why, you're injecting speculation and theory, based upon your partisian defense of the administration, into what should be a factual debate.

Broussard's comment is completely factual.

Also, Broussard was crying because the mother of a co-worker drowned in an attic after four days of calling in for help - NOT because water trucks were turned away.

Stick to the facts and we'll all be better off.

...is that Broussard had the facts wrong.  This is why I have called for fact verification.

has a differnt implication to it than "routed to another location".  "Turned away" implies rejection, sending back to where it came from.  "Routed to another location" does not have this implication.  

When something coming into somewhere is "turned away", it generally means that it has been rejected for entry, not just at that point, but everywhere.  It then is generally sent back to where it came from.

When something coming into somewhere is "routed to another location", it means it gets into the general area, but does not go to that specific spot. In this case, it was routed to another location in the hurricane/flood zone, which is a very large area... So yes, that water might not have made it to that particular parish, but it ended up in another one, where FEMA thought the need was greater for it.

Keep in mind, when dealing with a hurricane, everyone involved tends to see only the needs of their own little area - where they live, and they tend to not look at the needs of others living elsewhere as being as great as their own.  This is human nature, and after living through Ivan, Dennis, and now Katrina, I can tell you from first hand experience that people, even in areas not very hard hit by the storm, think that their needs should come first.  They come up with a variety of excuses for this rationale too.  One of the favorites is that "My area didn't get as hard hit as X area and thus we should be first because it will not take very long to get us back up and running, whereas if they deal with X area more first, it could be weeks before my area gets back up and running to full speed."

1. We don't know that the lines were taken out of service;
   
   
2. We don't know that it was actually FEMA, could actually have been the telephone company;
   
   
3. We don't know if they were actually taken out of service why they were taken down. Could have been a legitimate reason.

All we have is an unsubstantiated TV interview claim by this man with zero context and no opportunity for others to explain what happened and why.

No, Broussard said FEMA "turned them back."  As in, sent them back to Wal-Mart.  This, coupled with the other two examples he mentioned were meant to illustrate how the Federal government was refusing to help.  How do I know this?  Because he said so immediately before telling his three tales:

Sir, they were told like me. Every single day. The cavalry is coming. On the federal level. The cavalry is coming. The cavalry is coming. The cavalry is coming. I have just begun to hear the hooves of the cavalry. The cavalry is still not here yet, but I have begun to hear the hooves and were almost a week out.

In other words, Broussard wanted the public to believe the Feds didn't care, didn't want to help.  It really doesn't get much more clear than it is, unless you willingly refuse to see.

Never trust me with a button!

My "partisan defense of the adminsitration?"

1.  You don't know what party I belong to.
   
   
2.  You don't know if I've EVER voted for this President.
   
   
3.  You don't seem to understand that a call for fact checking is not a partisan attack.

And who got the empties to eturn for the dep[osit? And all Wal-Mart employees lie to protect FEMA and the BIG question is "Why". And who wants to buy Brossard a drink in Vegas? Get a grip and puff in a paper bag a few times.

... and others I can certainly confirm what you say. And add to this that people in many areas have zero idea what's happeninng anywhere else.

We found after Andrew that even a few miles makes a tremendous difference in what you know to have happened. We were without power for 6 weeks but were fortunate to be near areas that were functioning. So we were able to get batteries to keep the radio working and had a fairly good idea how extensive it was. Deeper down toward Homestead many people had almost no knowledge for weeks of how extensive or confined the damage actually was.

When your house and every other house in walking distance is piles of rubble the fact that someone up the road five miles is in the same shape doesn't enter the equation.

...what was the other location?

What location was more important than the location they were headed for [where they knew people were waiting for it]?

... that's part of the point. We don't actually know very much other than an accusation that is clearly intended to imply some sort of misconduct or at least incompetence. We do know that it was apparently diverted but we don't know where or why. But that isn't preventing certain people from making unsupported statements.

...they were, in fact, turned away.

You have the word of the Wal-Mart representative who said it was diverted.

Where and why?

If it was diverted back to WalMart, it was, in fact, turned away, rejected, stopped, refused.  Since we don't know where the water went, it seems to me that the one speculating is the one who wrote the diary and those posting in support.

The FACTS, thus far, support Broussard.  

1. Never mentioned a party.
   
2. Never said you voted for this president.
   
3. The FACTS we have don't support the diary, so how can you be fact checking? If you wanted to honestly fact check, you'd be asking "Where did those water trucks go and why?" before claiming that Broussard was wrong.  You're not interested in fact checking. You're interested in finding a way to make Broussard out to be a liar.

in such a knot, why don't you go find them and then report back here for our edification?

please prove that the trucks returned to their original location. Wal-Mart says that the trucks were not returned to their departure location, therefore we can reasonably presume that there were not, in fact, turned away, but rather were diverted.

You have no FACTS (as you put it) on your side, just Broussard's speculation (which is no better than anyone's speculation). The one fact we know is that Wal-Mart claims the trucks did not return to Wal-Mart. At best you have a he said/they said situation.

Firstly, I said "If". I was not making a factual statement that the trucks did go back to Wal-Mart. I was presenting a hypothesis.

Secondly, we have Broussard saying that the trucks were turned away from their original destination. Wal-Mart confirms that - the trucks were diverted.

Those are the FACTS. We have a statement by Broussard that is confirmed by Wal-Mart.  The trucks didn't go where they were originally going to go.

Spin it how you like, but those are the only facts we have thus far - contrary to the diary and your post above.

He obviously said that a FEMA rep turned the truck away because they 'didn't need it'.  Broussard's implication, in context, seems to be that FEMA was thwarting support efforts by refusing water and fuel, even going so far as to say FEMA deliberately cut emergency communication lines.

Why does it matter where the truck went when it did not return to Wal-Mart empty?  Obviously the water was unloaded for consumption to an area of greater need, per the owner of the truck.

as Broussard is to Queeg

One fact you are getting wrong is that Broussard did not say 'turned away' he said 'turned back' We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. (emphasis mine)

'back' and 'away' have 2 very distinct meanings. You are trying to spin 'turned back' into 'turned away'.

Know that the phone lines were taken out of service. So absent some proof that they were, we have to add this allegation to the "Broussard file."

I am also puzzled by this "other location". I guess New Orleans didn't have a need for clean drinking water....

Or maybe, it got diverted to Trent Lott's porch j/k:)

... for sale in New York.

you would think reporters would do their jobs and actually try to confirm.

Doesn't mean "disagreed."

We're shooting the trolls. "I disagree and here's why, with argument," is not and has never been trolling. "Bush lied and you're just closing ranks around him," comes close. "You're all a bunch of racist shills," is time to get the fire and acid.

Relax.

I have a lot of friends who work in the Home Office.

I do know that Wal-Mart has sent quite a bit of supplies to the area as well as their monetary donations.  I heard they also tried to send satellite communication equipment but there was either confusion about where it should go or it was rejected.  

I am also aware of the incident with the water -- and to Mr. Broussard, I'm sure it felt like the water was being turned away.  

For those who might have forgotten the exact words the man said, here's a quote:

"We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water.  FEMA turned them back.  They said we didn't need them."

This makes perfect sense and does not contradict what their Media Representative said -- FEMA rerouted the water elsewhere, saying that Jefferson Parish didn't need it.

It's completely natural and expected in any leader to want their locale taken care of first -- they have a responsibility to the people who elected them.  

Mr. Broussard had developed a reputation for zealously advocating for his parish -- in one particular instance for calling for an evacuation for Hurricane Dennis that went against Louisiana's plan.  (I saw another topic that the details of their evacuation plan would be more appropriate, so I'll say my opinion there -- but he was critized for calling the evacuation too soon.)

Anyway, he did not say anything that directly contradicted Wal-Mart's official statement.  

Just my $0.02.  

The truckloads of water and supplies were being arranged from the Home Office in Bentonville, not by local stores.  Their grocery distribution center in Robert, LA was closed because of the hurricane.  

It's quite possible that they had the goods sent from that DC, but they have had a "war room" going on for over a week now.  The focus of the war room has not been just getting their stores and DCs back online and/or secured, but also with helping employees that were stranded and trying to think of ways they could help everyone.

Wal-Mart is a very well-run business as far as logistics is concerned -- there's no way local offices would have been given authority to arrange this kind of relief effort by themselves.  Anything that might have happened on the local level would have been authorities commandeering goods from the stores and warehouses in the affected area, not local workers.

Hope this clears up the concern that this relief effort might not have been approved by the Home Office.  

Trent Lott's porch doesn't exist anymore.. totally destroyed by the storm...  

I heard his whole house is gone too, though I could be wrong.

but I just didn't spell it out quite so far.  Was hoping he'd get the drift though.

Honestly, it's embarrassing. You're knee deep in semantics.

Just let it go that what Broussard conveyed to be the case, was in fact, the case.

The trucks were initially en route to his Parish, and were turned away by FEMA. That's the essence of what he said.

The larger question as to WHY the trucks were diverted/turned away (a semantic difference in language) away from Jefferson Parish and to another location is, at the moment, unanswerable.

Wal-Mart doesn't seem to know. FEMA hasn't provided that information. And Broussard obviously doesn't know where they went.

But attempting to discredit an obviously distraught Broussard by parsing his words is the height of silliness.

"No, Broussard said FEMA "turned them back."  As in, sent them back to Wal-Mart. "

Not perhaps as in "turned them back, around, out of the parish"?  This is, I submit, what the gentleman meant as well as said.

"In other words, Broussard wanted the public to believe the Feds didn't care, didn't want to help. "

But does his agenda (your assertation, not mine) invalidate any factual information the man has?

Does your thread deserve perhaps a re-title to something like "Broussard's Wal-Mart Story Confirmed"?  Because it seems to me that you are deliberately trying to counter the "message" you have perceived in a beleagured public servant's plaintive cry that his constituency is suffering.

Remember, those resources that have now been CONFIRMED to have been re-allocated were AT or NEAR <u>a</u&gt site that needed them.  They were re-allocated to <u>different</u&gt thirsty people than the ones to which they were closest.  That is why Broussard, perhaps, feels slighted by the federal government--because the only thing worse than not having water is SEEING the water and not getting it.

Stop spinning for your federal government.  You voted for maybe three or four of those people.  They are not your friends.

Regarding the "She died on Friday" tale:

Subsequent reporting identified the man whom Broussard was referring to in the Meet the Press interview as Thomas Rodrigue, the Jefferson Parish emergency services director. Contacted on Friday by MSNBC.com, Rodrigue acknowledged that his 92-year-old mother and more than 30 other people died in the St. Rita nursing home. They had not been evacuated and the flood waters overtook the residence.

Rodrigue said he didn't see or hear Broussard's comments on Meet the Press. When told of the sequence of phone calls that Broussard described on Meet the Press, Rodrigue said "No, no, that's not true."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9368952

 "They[meaning FEMA] said we[meaning Jefferson Parish]  didn't need them." Such a statement makes it seem that FEMA was uncaring of Katrina victim needs & the MSM ran it over & over. According to Wal-Mart this statement is false. What would be more accurate is that "They said others needed them more" - which may be true or not but has quite a different tone than his actual statement. Broussard probably didn't know FEMA's reasons or motives but was just emoting & hand-wringing for the cameras. I put him on a par with Mother Sheehan since they both seem to be able to blubber on cue. My guess is that the rest of his story, about fuel diverted & FEMA cutting communication lines is even more bogus. Also, notice the Freudian slip with " ... if America--American government would have ... " bit. American government? He's talking about his own country like it was a foreign power - which reveals the mindset of some of the folks down in Louisiana.