Redstate

The MSM and the race baiting bigots of the left chose to drag the nation through the mud. It should have been a high point for naitonal unity and coming together. Instead we have spoiled Katrina refugees lounging around Houston, Atlanta, etc. and sitting on their rear ends instead of helping to rebuild their homes.

New Orleans may have died from the post-Katrina floods, but the welfare mentaliity that killed it lives on, even as New Orleans struggles to rebuild.

Brown was exactlyr right: the boobs and knuckleheads in Louisiana and New Orleans were the first responders, and totally blew it.

Brown should be ashamed of himself for caving in under the pressure to lie by the MSM. The Prez should not have cut him loose, but stoof by Brown and taken the fight right back at the demothugs who turned this so ugly.

The MSM portrayed "Brownie" as an unqualified boob, a man not qualified for even to run International Arabian Horse Association.

Are you implying Michael Brown was qualified to run an organization responsible for responding to disasters? Looking over his previous employment history gives me zero indication that he was.

I hate to break the news, but I could have told them "this is a bad one and a big one" after watching the Weather Channel for a few minutes.

been unduly hard on old "Brownie", given the circumstances it was certainly understandable. The response to the emergency was lacking on many fronts - and Brown was the front man.

The White House certainly didn't offer a spirited defense of him.  They could have released these videos long ago and they would have gone a long way towards restoring Brown's credibility. It's rather obvious, though, that they would have had to take a bit of a hit with their own.

I saw another clip last night where GWB was excusing the government response by asserting that the media had better situational awareness than the administration. That's not very reassuring, is it?

I saw another clip last night where GWB was excusing the government response by asserting that the media had better situational awareness than the administration. That's not very reassuring, is it?

I'm sure that W thought that the media had better situational awareness.  After all, it's their job to look like they know what's going on so they can tell us.

But as we all know, most of what the media "knew" about New Orleans was total bunk.

were not a probably with the 4 or 5 major hurricanes that hit Florida the previous year.  The problems of Katrina were almost completely in New Orleans, few in LA and MS.  The major difference in the failure in NO and the way things were handled in Fl and MS were the leadership and preparation of the local and state officials.  The weak link in the Katrina failures was Blanco.  I wouldn't even say Nagin was very responsible, a mayor has limited resources to respond to something like this but Blanco had state-wide assets including state police, national guard and all kind of physical assets that should failed to use.

Blanco was completely over her head, she blinked.

MSM jumped on "Brownie" pretty bad but as I watched the events unfold I was screaming for heads to roll as well. The White House and DHS was all to happy to walk away from Brown and let him take what we now know should have been some of their lumps.

...since you responded without answering the question:

Are you implying Michael Brown was qualified to run an organization responsible for responding to disasters?

Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"

Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."

Chertoff: "Good job."

But those assests weren't really in place.

No, Brown still wasn't qualified to handle a disaster of this magnitude, and his bosses apparently put too much trust in him.

OT...I have heard reports that this video was released originally  back on Aug 28-29, and that it is being rereleased just to embarress the administration.

Levee Terms:

[Over]topping: your pants get wet.

Breaching: fish swim over your head.

-----------

excerpt:

MAX MAYFIELD:

One of the valleys here in Lake Pontchartrain, we've got on our forecast track, if it maintains its intensity: about 12 1/2 feet of storm surge in the lake. The big question is going to be: will that top some of the levies?

And the currrent track and the forecast we have now suggests there will be minimal flooding in the city of New Orleans itself, but we're -- we've always said that the storm surge model is only accurate within 20 percent.

If that track were to deviate just a little bit to the west, it would -- it makes all the difference in the world. I do expect that there will be some of the levies over top even out here in the western portions where the airport is. We've got valleys that can't overtop some of the levies.

The problem we're going to have here -- remember, the winds go counterclockwise around the center of the hurricane. So if the really strong winds clip Lake Pontchartrain, that's going to pile some of that water from Lake Pontchartrain over on the south side of the lake. I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levies will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very grave concern.

plan assets were in place. Blanco refused to immediately allow the Red Cross, an agent of FEMA under applicable law in tnis circumstance. MSM reporting of full scale war, ie armed looters made it necessary to bring in the troops lest rescuers be shot.

Knowledege that the levee might be breached was universal. The pics were on TV with the usual wolf crying (hey, maybe the msm is that boy who...) Yet, despite the assumption that, as if, NOLA would evacuate the folks in the bowl, Bush is supposed to anticipate massive stupidity?

The main assets FEMA lacked were a substitute Guv and hiz honor and repeal of Posse Comitatus.

Or a white president willing to declare insurrection due to an incompetent female governor and black mayor...

And maybe we shouldnt re-build a city behind a leveee in a hurricane prone area.

No levees in FLA and SC or any other state

This  was a once (break) and twice (breach) in 300 years occurrence

was running FEMA during the storms that hit Florida back-to-back for two years. FEMA did exactly what we were told to expect them to do and when we were told to expect them to do it.

The difference is that Florida has a plan and actually executed that plan. When was the last story you saw in the press about the results of either the 2004 or 2005 season in Florida. I can tell you that we got bloodies in Katrina and had the cr*p kicked out of us down here in Wilma and althought there are still people feeling the effects, we've picked ourselves up and gone on with life. The same is true of post-Katrina Mississippi and Alabama and post-Rita Texas.

What's the last news report you've seen about South Florida, Southern Mississippi? Galveston, Beaumont, etc. You don't even hear about Slidell, right up the road. They got plastered too. In first three or four miles of coastal Mississippi there aren't two bricks on top of one another and they are picking up and moving on.  Where's all the whining coming from? New Orleans.

As Hoover points out the difference is competence.

from the post levee break that a power struggle to be the one handing out the goodies ensued between FEMA and Blanco.  

The thinking was not unlike the plight of Palestinians.  Some poor people have to suffer hardship so we can fix the blame and move ahead with our agenda.  

The answer to the problem of evacuation ended up sitting in a lake in the school bus yard.  The answer to post katrina supplies was in military transport that could have been loaded with FEMA supplies and driven to the Superdome any day they wanted to.  

Its not hard to fault poor leadership,  Brown certainly did not understand that his job was to force political solutions.  Anyone who thought people would just naturally want to do the right thing in a catastrophy were no doubt surprised with the vigor that senator Landry and the MSM attacked the administration.  The only people who ended up looking like heros were the coast guard.  They knew their mission and had no one challenge them on the rooftops as they pulled people from the flood.  Anyone who wanted to know where the suffering was could have tuned in to Shep (Fox News) at the Superdome.

In the sacto delta...and our guv is working on plans to shore them up.

Were the levees to break or breech, the magnitude of the disaster would make nola look like a swimming pool.

I'm not asking about the federal and/or state response. I'm not placing blame. I'm asking one simple question:

Do you feel that Michael Brown, based on his previous employment and past experience, was qualified to act as head of FEMA?

uses Mike Brown as a whipping boy for how Bush failed during Katrina and then a few months later uses him as an authority figure for how Bush failed during Katrina.

They changed the narrative from "Bush hired incompetent cronies" to "Bush didn't listen to his smart advisors' warnings" without blinking an eye.

perform well at a job regardless of education or prior experience. Just because you've never done something before doesn't mean you won't do it well when called on to act.

You want to hang him because his pre-FEMA resume is thin. I'm pointing out that his FEMA performance in an number of other disasters does not mirror hiw resume or what people said about him post-Katrina.

Doesn't a man's actual accomplishments ever get to count for something, or is he forever measured by his grade point average and his prior work experience?

can put a chameleon to shame.

Step #1: Appoint a random person with no prior experience for a job they are not qualified for.

Step #2: Hope for the best.

Kind of makes you wonder how he got the job in the first place, eh?

I tire of chasing chimeras.

Comparing the Katrina response to the Florida hurricanes, and concluding that it was the state's fault. isn't quite fair.

When the hurricanes were hitting (swing state) Florida with such enthusiasm, it was the run up to the 2004 presidential elections.  Of course the party in power, wanting to retain that power (not partisan here, Democrats would have done exactly the same thing), are going to bend over backwards when the swing votes are in physical jeopardy.  A trained monkey could have been running FEMA (and by most accounts, that isn't a totally inaccurate characterization of Brown) and Florida still would have been saved.  

Look back at the news from that time, Florida was innundated with federal cash, so much so that several areas that suffered no storm damage seemed to get some nice gifts.  It doesn't hurt to have your brother be the president either.

Maybe it was the state's fault that it wasn't an election year and that Louisiana wasn't a swing state that could potentially decide the outcome.

Sorry, I guess I am just too silly, but would you care to back that up with an arguement?

Y'all have more people protected by a levee than NOLA? Never knew. I have often-times joked, given the mudslides and the earthquakes, that cally is still evolving geo-graphically, but I didn't know we had other examples of such mis-placed 19th century optimism in t he power of man to re-configure the planet in our image!

Especially since I can't even get a simple yes or no answer, possibly with a justification for said answer.

I had one honeymoon and attended 3 Mardi Gras in NOLA, and called my brother in KC, MO on Sunday night, that I feared there would be a catastrophe, and, quite frankly, I do think that Bush should have been on top of it, political correctness be dam**d. But then I hear that there were some shouting matches back and forth and wonder if he tried.

My bottom line is this. Katrina destroyed a city and killed people. I have not been shown that any actions not taken by FEMA after 72 hours caused any deaths. Certainly suffereing could have been relieved sooner, but even then, watching Shep showed FEMA that the army needed to go in first.

It turns out that hysterical exaggerations by the media slowed the relief. Just beacuse a camera can film a person saying "Bush save me" doesn't mean it can or should happen before the next commercial.

What is your opinion on what should happen to and within how much time to displaced denizens of public housing? Shouldn't they be required to choose to re-locate to a city that has not been destroyed rather than be housed in a city near a destroyed city?

The entire central valley area will be flooded...disaster of epic proportions.

Its very scary, and until now, no one has been working to shore up the levees.

The costs to do so are astronomical, but the costs not to will be even worse in terms of loss of life, property and much of the states income.

Maybe it shouldn't have been done in the first place, but the state depends on the agriculture it allows.

Are a perfect example of a country that only exists because of levees.  The problem isn't with the concept that a berm keeps out water.  The problem is with designing it right and then putting the money into it to keep it up to snuff.

If Bush was confident and Brownie was concerned, does that make Bush partially at fault (for not getting things mobilized as fast as possible)?

Or are prior reports true and Brownie was telling Bush (or Chertoff) everything was A-OK, so Brownie is the one at fault?

Or was Brownie concerned, relayed it to Chertoff who then lied and told Bush everything was ok, so Chertoff is the one at fault?

Disclaimer:

I mean of course beyond any fault which could fairly be laid upon local officials.

bit the apple!

and one who enjoys the South as well, I am fully in favor of seeing the city rise from the ashes (opps, wrong metaphor).  However I would build up the land sites so that a new breach would only drown the car garages.  I would even approve designs on stilts.  There may be some low lands that could be left to the gators but the home owners should get enough to get a new start somewhere nearby.  There, thats what to do about the flooded houses, but you asked about the people.

If they are willing to get their hands blistered working I would move them into travel trailers or mobile homes nearby and support the rebuild. (Thats right, materials courtesy of FEMA.  And some workers and drivers as needed.)   Remember, the rebuild is on stilts or with lower floors that could recover from another flood. I don't want to have to do this again. This stuff about not letting trailers and mobiles in is so dumb.  Not only because I live in one, but because the people need to be nearby to do the recovery work.  Oh, and I would obviously start by bulldozing the properties and laying new foundations.  I would be doing this now, its construction weather.  I would hold off on schools and things until this building gets done, and I would have the willing but not able direct traffic because there would be one heck of a jam up. (Kids who are big enough would be put to work for a year.)

If they are not able or not interested in the work, I would put them in a mobile somewhere where things are zoned for mobile and welfare living.  And I would take away the franchise.

You manner of asking questions suggests a examining a witness --- just answer yes or no to a question for which yes or no is not the only possible answer.

I gave you an answer. Having the job he successfuly acquited himself in a number of major storms that struck Florida prior to Katrina. The simple reason for that is that his agency performed exactly as intended and as understood by the emergency authorities in Florida.

Had your criteria been the only set in operation at the time Gen. Eisenhower probably could not have been given the job as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Fortunately, you were not making that call.

He is infinitely more qualified than Hazel O'leary at DOE for Clinton, and I will bet that Hazel had a nice shiny resume, too...at least before she had that little crackup and tried to force her way into the cockpit of a United Airlines flight. But I digress beyond your simple yes or no, no?

but I am under the impression that the levees in The Netherlands are not designed to withstand anything remotely resembling a Cat-3 hurricane.

I am further taken to understanding that designing a levee system to withstand such a storm in the gulf region would be cost-prohibative to the point of it being easier and less expensive to pack-up and move every single living creature in the impacted zone to higher ground.

I am prepared to be educated otherwise.

that indicated that the City will be a bowl in the middle of the Gulf within a few decades or less due to the damage to barrier islands and the unatural routing of the River going back to the 1800's or earlier.

And that the cost of rebuilding the barrier islands is probibitive.

I may have some facts wrong, and I love Nawlins a lot, but I just wonder if maybe we should listen to nature and restore a small city to service the port and require new construction in a more tenable location.  And I am not a tree hugging leftie!

Are we not facing the reality? I'm asking. And I am not averse to major effort that would challenge the displaced to re-build. But cities are built in the first place based on entreprenuerial risk and so, to pull off a successful re-construction at government direction, it seems to me, would require strong leadership, consensus to spend the massive $$$

and a lot of luck.

Am I wrong?

...unless I invoke UFO's and the Swamp Thing.

What amazes me is the radical expansion in expectations for FEMA.  My expectations of them were that they'd show up after the Red Cross, National Guard, and local first responders had dealt with the emergency, to conduct the cleanup.  

FEMA shoud be about the aftermath, not the crisis.  

How can a federal agency be tasked with emergency response?  It's insane.  Federal agencies are good at one thing: spending money.

It's another example of increased federal power, at the expense of the States and the People.

The revisionist part is that everyone is acting like it's always been FEMA's responsibility to take care of everything.  They were blindsided by this sudden expansion in expectations, and now everyone is pointing fingers.

And why is it the President's fault?  Why does the President have to deal with every issue, large and small?  

It's a stupid way to run a country.

 are below the level of the Sac River.  And Franks Tract used to be dry land, now it's a shallow bass fishery - there is too much water to reclaim the land.  Every so often a gopher nest weakens a levee enough for a breach.  (Probably a protected species).  That said, while there are a lot of new homes being built in harms way, I have a feeling that California would not put up the fight against FEMA that the LA state did.  Plus the whole of CA is part of a giant flood control project which for the most part keeps the Sac River from rising too far

I caught a snippet of a program on TV in the last two nights discussing rebuilding the levees. An Army Corps of Engineers office was asked about building beyond Cat 3 and as I recall he said the cost to go above Cat 3 would be measured in the tens of billions of dollars.

It is worth recalling that the Saffer-Simpson scale is not linear. A Cat 4 is not "just a bit stronger" than a Cat 3. and the wind pressure alone from a Cat 5 storm can destroy a concrete block building and damage even a reinforced concrete structure. Add to that water pressure from much higher waves and the additional force of the wind driven water and you are looking at some serious damage.

If history serves the 9th Ward of NO was completely inundated to the same degree in an earlier storm (late 50s' ?).

The difference between then and now is 24 hour TV news :-)

You followed your original question with this snark:

I hate to break the news, but I could have told them "this is a bad one and a big one" after watching the Weather Channel for a few minutes.

You implied that Brown was no more qualified than you to run FEMA. Hoover responded by pointing out that FEMA performed admirably, with Brown at the head, while a series of hurricanes struck Florida, figuring that you would understand that admirable performance of a job is a wonderful indicator of being qualified to do that job. He also pointed out that FEMA works not alone but in coordination with local officials.

You responded by generalizing your question a bit, leaving out any reference to prior experience:

Are you implying Michael Brown was qualified to run an organization responsible for responding to disasters?

Actually, he wasn't implying it. He was saying it outright.

jsteele pointed out that Brown headed FEMA admirably while handling the series of disasters in Florida that stretched over two hurricane seasons. Once again, admirable performance of a job is a great indicator of being qualified for that job.

Then you went back to insisting on prior experience. In other words, you want to ignore what Brown actually did heading FEMA before NO, and are only willing to focus on what he did before running FEMA.

Sorry you are not getting the answers you want to your questions. You are getting answers, but don't like them. Sorry.

The main point is that FEMA exists to provide support to local officials, who are the first responders to a disaster, and are responsible for having a plan to respond to potential disasters. It's supposed to be a coordinated effort. Blanco blew it, but the media and people like you want to blame Bush, Brown, and FEMA.

A baseball analogy. Even Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson can't win a game if their catchers can't handle their fastballs. Winning baseball games is a team effort. Incompetence at any position will destroy a teams chances to win.

With Katrina, the incompetence was found in the Louisiana Governor's mansion.

put the Chicago heat wave victims on TV begging Der Schleik for a drink and a/c.

both before and since the storm, it appears that Mike Brown and FEMA basically did what they were supposed to do, within the limits of what the Governor would allow.  So, yes, he was likely sufficiently qualified to hold the job.

Without relying on remote annecdotal evidence, I can say with some confidence that the primary breakdown in the response was in the Governor's mansion in Baton Rouge.  The Governor has the responsibility for initial response, for mobilizing state-level troops and supplies, and for backing up the city and parish (county) resources.  It didn't happen.

She actually refused to allow the Red Cross into New Orleans for several days because it was "too dangerous".  

It doesn't help the MSM's cause to bash Blanco, though, since she a dem and they really don't care about Louisiana politics.  But, when they can use it to work over Bush, then they have something.

They are saying that since your post seems not to blame Louisiana nor exonerate Bush, your post is therefore automatically silly. They are not, you will notice, arguing the merits of your post, just calling it names.

Select Bipartisan Committee to

Investigate the Preparation for and

Response to Hurricane Katrina

I can tell you these people did not come up with any swing state theories when on record, can you tell me who did?

What are you doing watching 60 minutes?

I have not studied the barrier islands and man is to blame issue here.  You can tell from my tone that I am initially skeptical when ever an environmentalist speaks.  If correct then maybe I am premature about how to rebuild.  (I've been wrong before.)  I don't mind working a little with mother nature. I understand that as the river silts, the banks of the Miss need to be built up.  This obviously creates a long term problem.  As to the barrier islands and the delta erosion, maybe there are some new approaches that would help,   But there will be more storms, and they will come in.  New building needs to take this into consideration.

could have run FEMA during the 2004-2005 storms it's because our disaster management folks know what they are doing.

For example, there is a statewide conference call once a week during hurricane season to discuss general preparation. Once a storm is identified as a potential threat things shift in to high gear. The state, counties and local governments coordinate what resources are available to shift to where the problem is. The entire state is on standby to deliver whatever aid is necessary to whatever part of the state is impacted.

The Democratic Governor at the time, Lawton Chiles, started this ball rolling after Andrew because nothing worked right then. And the current Republican Governor, Jeb Bush, has maintained the pace.

You'd have to be delusional to think that the only reason that the disaster preparation plan works is because the Governor is the President's brother. Not only is it delusional, but it is insulting to the thousands and thousands of hard working public officials, employees, law enforcement, fire-rescue and National Guardsmen throughout the state who put their all into making sure we do not go through what we did after Andrew.

In Florida we have a disaster plan just like Louisiana. However we used ours for something other than holding the conference room door open.

Your arguement is then, that the fact that Florida was a swing state in an extremely close election only months away didn't affect the administrations response to the hurricanes bearing down on it?

That seems just a bit naive, but then again: UFO's, Swamp thing, and I am just being silly.

Make a real arguement please, if you have one.  I don't mind being proven wrong.

about the Mississippi that said that (absent human intervention) the river diverts to begin forming a new delta about every thousand years or so, and that the last time it did was about a thousand years ago. IOW, it's due. Also, levees upstream have increased the amount of water flowing to the lower Mississippi, and that should only accelerate the process. And once the delta stops receiving silt from upstream to replace what is washed away by weather and the tides, it disappears pretty quickly.

The show also said that in the late 19th century a canal was dug to connect the Mississippi to the Red River, but had to be filled back in because they had accidentally diverted the entire flow of the Mississippi.

It is entirely possible that NO's days really are numbered.

The point of this release is not to lionize or even exculpate Brown. Don't try to change the subject. The point is that when Bush said, "We didn't know the levees could breach" or "We didn't know how bad it would be," we now have video proof of him being told that "Yes, the levees may well breach" and "Yes, it will be bad."

This entire thread about Brown's treatment by the media is a distraction from the issue of Bush's statements after the storm.

Not that LA was singled out for not being a swing state in an election year.  My arguement was that Florida was singled out for being one.  They (the panel) weren't comparing the two, the previous poster was, and I am saying that the comparison is invalid.

.. in New Orleans.  I dont care who was in charge of FEMA, the failure was predeterminned.  What the heck have the local authorities been doing for the last thirty years since the last one came through.  Why didn't the state or local authorities have a better plan for something that everyone knew was coming ?   I've seen many programs over the years, on channels like the discovery channel on what would happen when another Cad 5 Hurricane hit New Orleans.  What did they do with all the money that was sent to sure up the levy's ?  Why are the taxpayer's paying to sore up a city that is sinking year by year into the gulf of mexico in the first place ?  Where is the individual responsiblity for understanding where you live what you need to do in case of a local emergency that is a strong posibility (ie hurricane, flood, tornado, earthquake.... ect).

explain MS and AL? They both got hit in the same storm.

if they'd done that there'd be an air conditioned dome over Cook County today!

and Redstate is for adults.  You made up a theory that you can't back up with facts and threw it into a serious debate.  I am more than man enough to apologize for the snarkiness if you can back up this "swing state conspiracy", but not if you can't pony up some proof.

the river has, and continues to, wander all over the place. The river levee system has actually constrained it and potentially made the ultimate outcome worse.

Even though the Weather Channel did a good job of raising the alarm for New Orleans before Katrina struck, even they dropped the ball once it did hit--their reporter in the French Quarter (above sea level) was saying that New Orleans had dodged the bullet (less wind damage than the Mississippi coast), and he wasn't aware that the levees were breaking.

RBMN has a good point that, even if the eye of a hurricane passes slightly east of New Orleans, a strong north wind off Lake Ponchartrain can pile a lot of water against the levees along the south shore of the lake.

A few days after Katrina hit, there was an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal, which showed a map of WHERE the levees broke--along three CANALS, two of which run from Lake Ponchartrain to the Mississippi River, the other runs south from Lake Ponchartrain about halfway through the city. The levees along Lake Ponchartrain HELD--it was the levees along the CANALS that broke!

If the problem is along the canals, instead of Lake Ponchartrain or the Mississippi, the solution may be much less costly than trying to build new, higher levees for many miles! All they would need to do is build hurricane-resistant LOCKS at both ends of all canals, which would be closed in advance of an approaching hurricane. Then, if there was a levee breach along a canal, the volume of water that could flow into the city would be that of the canal, instead of that of Lake Ponchartrain! Instead of water nearly up to the rooftops, some people would just get their feet wet.  

Has anyone suggested this to the people in charge of spending billions of dollars on levees?

That's what the AP says is on the videos.

The actual discussion was 'overtopping' the levees, not 'breeching' them. There is a huge difference. Overtopping is some flooding, breeching is disaster.

Are you kidding? I've been watching these videos and thinking, just like you, to some extent Brown did get screwed. He wasn't the total dolt worried only about his wardrobe that we'd been led to believe.

But who did it benefit to put out that misperception of Brown? It doesn't support the "Bush Lied" assumptions of the MSM. It protected Bush. He did his job, but, sadly, he misjudged a subordinate. Oh, and it conveniently was leaked that Brown falsified his resume (in the most trivial of ways), so Bush is the victim of a con. Brown was resigning no matter what, and it was to the administration's advantage for him to take as much blame with him as he went down.

Now we know that in some ways, Brown was trying to push the bureaucracy, but it doesn't look like he was getting much help from above, other than vacuous pep-talks and a noticeable lack of curiousity.

As a Southern Baptist, I consider this a major departure exceeded only by the lack of regular Wednesday Night Prayer Service, as a proper interpretation of the the Apostle Paul clearly requires (smile), but I became attached to this congregation thru, a, now , ex-girlfriend, when I moved to Atlanta 5 yrs ago, and so have been exposed to the likes of Leslie Stahl and Co with the fake but accurate network.

From now on, its King of the Hill or a visit to Chales Stanley!

was to keep their fingers crossed and hope it wouldn't hit them.

You are welcome to point out where I stated that the only reason that disaster aid worked was Jeb's relation to the President, but thanks for calling me delusional anyways. That is always the way to win an arguement.

I believe what I said was "It doesn't hurt to have your brother be the president either", are you saying that this isn't true?   I don't believe that it hurt that Jeb has the President's private phone number.  I would argue thinking otherwise is a bit more delusional.

In Florida, there are several differences, probably the best counter to your arguement is that is is much bigger, and the majority of the state wasn't affected by the hurricanes (as opposed to Louisana), so the state itself was in a better position to react to its own problem.

This whole thing still ignores the fact that the federal response to the Florida hurricanes was both significantly faster and more competent than it was to Louisana.

they make the tinfoil you need to line your hat.

In the meantime, bother someone else with the conspiracy theories.

Consider the herd culled.

You don't seriosly think that politicians, people who are professionals in the practice of politics, didn't take into account the political importance of the state in question when deciding on their response?  Really?

I mentioned a program I saw recently about the reconstruction. In that program there was some discussion of movable storm gates at the Ponchartrain end of the canals (it seems to me I recall seeing somewhere that there are locks on one or more of the canals already but I could be confusing that with something else.)

Of course that's sort of like fighting the last war. The next storm might produce entirely different results on the other levees.

another one bites the dust...

to North Point which is pastored by Charles' son, Andy Stanley? I don't think they had Sunday night services but their satellite Buckhead Church did.

The same way they've done it for years.

is as delusional does I guess.

You state as a "fact" that the federal response to Flordia was faster and more competent, the implication being soley because of the familial relationship of the President and the Governor, and I do not agree that it is anything approaching a "fact." I don't think you can offer hard evidence of that "fact."

The federal response was what, when and how we expected it to be. They didn't have to be "faster and more competent" because the Flordia plan was working.

Hmmm.

He answered your question several times.  

All it requires is both reading ability and comprehension.

But if you've got the mental faculties of a 5 year old then I'll spell it out for you:

YES Brown was QUALIFIED to run FEMA.

And AS AN EXAMPLE of that QUALIFICATION Brown managed to handle the multiple back-to-back hurricanes that hammered Florida.

Do you understand that or do I have to write for a 4 year old?

Hmmm.

Do you actually have any evidence to support this allegation or are you simply speculating and pulling this from some nether region?

If it's the the former then let's see it.  

If the latter then all I can say is: Good show.  You've extended the collective knowledge of the universe by a marginal factor.

it should have worked this time. What went wrong?

of points

According to the LA Times

"The AP video does not include footage of Chertoff asking Brown whether he needs any other help or of Chertoff asking whether Brown wants him to approach the Department of Defense. Transcripts show that to both questions, Brown indicated that no additional assistance was needed."

Secondly, they weren't concerned about the levees being breached. They were concerned about the levees being overtopped. The breach did not occur on the Gulf side of New Orleans but rather inside New Orleans on the Industrial Canal and there is evidence that a barge was driven into that levee which precipitated the breach.

three times this month. I'll wave at you from the sky.

Sorry to threadjack your threadjack.

Your simple little "Just So " stories may be good for frightening little kids and impressionable college students, but they are merely laughable to sane adults.  

... stole the election in 2000 and in so doing started and evil chain reaction the likes of which have never been seen!

That and a huge hurricane, which on the weather channels radar spread from Texas to Florida, happened to make landfall...  

...Greek myths either.

So if we are concerned about a flood going over a wall, it never occurs to anyone that said wall might break? And this is the textual difference that saves Bush?

I'm sorry, but this sounds way too much like Clinton's "it depends on your definition of "alone""

how storms in the north sea compare to Cat X hurricanes.  But the north sea does have some of the most severe storms on the planet, capable of flipping giant ferry boats.  Landbound waves are 10's of meters high during such storms.

http://www.fettes.com/shetland/wave%20environment.htm

According to the link below, 2,500 square miles of the netherlands is protected by levees.  

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-199591

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/8363/ahh7ly.gif

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/2450/40747362norleansinf4163lp.gif

The netherlands had a disastrous flood in the 1950's, but rather than emmigrate to Denmark or Belgium they decided to put the money where it was needed.

http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/pubinfo/newsr/2005/1129sec-nytimes
reprint.ssi

"Maarten van der Vlist, an engineer with Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch equivalent of the Corps of Engineers, said that after a disastrous flood in 1953, the Netherlands chose to protect against flooding that occurs once every 10,000 years."

I've stood on the coast of Holland by the north sea and seen the levees.  They are quite an impressive feat, certainly costing 10's of billions of dollars.

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works

even more like you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend the physical difference between a breach and an overtop and thus are giving Brown credit for prescience, where none exists, and crediting Bush with [fill in your favorite fault here] where the transcript shows that was not the case.

Sort of a half-baked combination of BushLied™ and BlameBush™.

I'm sure there are places where this level of insipidness will be greeted with the hosannas due a prophet. This, fortunately, is not one of those places.

Off ye go. Have fun.

the implication that better federal response was solely due to the fact that Florida was a swing state. What I did see was an assertion that it was a possible contributing factor.

What is, IMHO, delusional is the concerted effort by posters to debunk that theory. Actually, there's been no serious debunking - merely assertions that it can't possibly be so.

GWB is on the now infamous tape of the video conference making assurances that the feds are ready and the states will get all the help they need. It's obvious from the resultant disaster that was not the case. The question is why?

Posters are quite prepared to tar democratic state officials with the incompetence brush. Why is the administration immune?

Im not sure how storms in the north sea compare to Cat X hurricanes.

... they don't (at least, that's according to my socialist Dutch office-mate).

There is also a matter of necessity, isn't there?  In The Netherlands, roughly 1/3 of the land area, and about 1/2 the population, of the entire nation lives below sea level.  So, it makes sense that there would be a national drive to make sure that the dams don't break, no?

Isn't it also the case that floods are about the only natural disaster that the Dutch need to care about?

My only point is that it's a tad unfair to single-out the engineering marvel that is the Dutch levee system as a model for NOLA when it's not entirely likely that such a system would have survived the breaching action in the first place (wasn't it caused by a barge ramming the bayside levee?).

the Federal Emergency Management Agency?

Maybe because it's supposed to manage emergency response?

Perhaps it should be renamed - how about the Federal Aftermath Management Agency?

Actually, there's been no serious debunking...

That's because the suggestion is - yes, I'm going to say it - silly.  We tend not to traffic in the debunking of the silly unless it entertains us.

GWB is on the now infamous tape of the video conference making assurances that the feds are ready and the states will get all the help they need.

And you have evidence that they did not get all they needed?  Or rather, that all they needed was not available?

It's obvious from the resultant disaster that was not the case.

Sez you.

Posters are quite prepared to tar democratic state officials with the incompetence brush. Why is the administration immune?

Because they (democrat officials in NOLA and LA) were the first responders and they failed utterly at their charges.  Had NOLA and LA held-up their end of the long-standing Fed/State deal and managed to keep order for 72-hours this would have been a non-story (much like the lack of story we have from MS and AL to the same disaster).  They failed, and now it's AllBush'sFault™.

No one is arguing that the Administration is immune from criticism - only that it is not the Administration's fault NOLA disintegrated into Mogadishu within 16-hours of the storm passing.

some links or facts to back up your innuendo.

"It doesn't hurt to have your brother be the president either"

Didn't help Billy Carter. You see, if you are incompetent, even PresidentBro can't always pull your fat out of the fire.  Give some credit to Jeb, and stop being so cynical and conspiratorial.

"In Florida, there are several differences, probably the best counter to your arguement is that is is much bigger, and the majority of the state wasn't affected by the hurricanes (as opposed to Louisana), so the state itself was in a better position to react to its own problem."

I think you are laboring under some  misconceptions here, and you provide no links or maps to back up your contention.    

of overtopping and breaching the levees is beside the point.

If the best defense of the administration is that they exhibit a lack of imagination to realize that where "overtopping" was likely, then "breaching" may also be a consideration that's a sad premise indeed.

I watched the unfolding events from very far away (up here in Canada) and there was discussion of levees being overtopped AND breached.

For Bush to say a few days later that "no one anticipated the breach of the levees" was either an outright falsehood or he wasn't listening to what he was being told. I can't imagine that disaster response agencies don't deal in "worst case scenarios" or that the president of the US would not be informed of the possibility.

GWB participated in that video conference. His words were "I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property and we pray for no loss of life, of course."

GWB himself made quite clear that he thought that the feds had a role to play - and not a minor one. It's disingenuous to suggest that mere semantics make a big difference here and somehow absolve the administration of their fair share of the blame.

Do you feel, given that Michael Brown was a white man and mostly likely a non-Democrat, he had sufficient sensitivity to the issues of minorities to be responding to national disasters in minority communities?

That's what I want to know.

Whether or not that has anything to do with the problems as they occurred, who cares about that? I just want to know the answer to my question, which is an attempt to attack certain folks on paper credentials and flaws in the process while ignoring the real causal relationships to observable results.

Even if Michael Brown was not the man for the job (and one could more easily argue that large federal bureaucracies are simply not the sort of institution to handle the job, no matter who is at the top of the food chain), what does that have to do with the price of tea in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas when you compare it to New Orleans?

Frankly, the local response was appalling, often in opposition to the concerns, recommendations, and instructions of FEMA and the DHS, and in the aftermath it was the bureaucracy of FEMA, not Michael Brown, that has helped create such waste and fraud. Not to mention, just throwing money to the same folks who've been getting boatloads of federal money for years to prepare for natural disasters and flooding and end up spending the cash on pet projects is maybe not the best idea.

According to Popular Mechanics in-depth analysis of the storm

MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

How much more response do you want?

For got the link: Popular Mechanics article

Chertoff is the one who undermined Brown, according to Brown. Chertoff's inexperience combined with his tendency to micromanage gave the bad result at the federal level, according to Brown. But FEMA's mismanagement was dwarfed by the local mismanagement however. Nothing could make up for that. The Defense Dept. were the real stars of the operation, and after all, Bush is in charge of the Defense Dept. as well as well as Homeland Security.

from Canada is a bit skewed.

The discussion was about the levees on the Lake Ponchartrain/Gulf side of NO. These were not damaged.

The levees that collapsed were in interior canals.

So I think it is disingenous -- if viewed in the most charitable light possible -- on your part to ignore the subject under discussion in this meeting, the levees on the seaward side of NO, and substitute your own personal meaning.

What does it matter which levees were overtopped and which were breached? They were all in New Orleans.

Do you really mean to suggest that no one could possibly have thought that the integrity of the interior canals/levees didn't represent similar threats to the ones at Lake Pontchartrain? Do you really mean to suggest that in all of the discussions about possible outcomes no one ever considered the interior canals?

In the video clips that I've seen the expert speaks of levees, I've not come across a version where he's specific about which ones. If you have a link to a video or transcript in which it is clear only the lake levees are discussed I'd like to see it, although I really don't see that it makes much difference.

I contend that disaster agencies are going to deal in worst case scenarios for planning purposes. I can hardly believe that one set of levees were under discussion and the others were not even considered. That would strike me as woefully shortsighted, if not outright negligent.

Viewing things in the most charitable light that I can, I suggest that you are grasping at straws in order to defend the indefensible.

Disingenous.

Skewed.

1. No one said that. Only that the subject on interior canals was not the subject of the video nor were interior canals breached in the infamous simulation carried out earlier in the year. In all cases they were talking about the Pontchartrain side which were not breached.
   
2. Can't do your research for you.
   
3. The ususally simulate most likely case. But even worst case does not simulate everything. Since you know all the answers why don't you move to a real country and get a job in FEMA.
   
4. No one is defending anything. I am merely pointing out you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about, or alternatively, you are deliberatley misrepresenting the facts. Take your choice.

but have meant to. Thanks for the heads up on possible sun pm service in Buckhead.

Nice. Is there a particular reason you feel the need to insult me personally, streiff? I was of the understanding that personal attacks were not the preferred method of discussion on this site.

IMHO it is you who are being disingenuous. I am not deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I have read whatever transcrips I can find and done my own research, thank you. The transcripts I've read mention the lake levees, but also evidenced concern about the other levees within the city.

You are far to quick to take umbrage. I was merely asking (politely, I might add) whether you had any reference that contradicted what I have seen and read. After all, it is you who are suggesting I don't "have a clue" as to what I'm talking about.

I grant you that emergency/disaster response agencies are going to simulate the most likely case. However, I really can't believe that they would not also consider the worst case scenarios. Obviously there are no guarantees that any emergency situation is always going to fall into the "most likely" scenario. To suggest so is ridiculous.

realize this, but at an editor I get really tired of the various permutations of BushLied™ and BlameBush™. I've seen them all, I didn't find them amusing when I first saw them and I find them less amusing with each subsequent reading.

As someone who has served both as an umpire and a scenario writer on national level simulations I also find this default position of "worst case" studies to be baffling and amusing. You don't have infinite time or infinite money. You are testing specific responses within specific systems. You can't afford to test scenarios that will only play out once a century, if then.

The video tells us nothing we didn't know in August and certainly provides no substance to any of the claims that are being made on its behalf.

So yes, I take umbrage. I take lots of it and were it not for your posting record you probably would not have survived this encounter.

If we were to deal in worst case scenarios then we should be building a levee across the shorline of the whole country, just to be safe.

And then we have to hope the local "levee commissions" dont use the money we send them for something else, like, oh, mardi gras statues.

I'm not prepared to just let this go. I wish to point out that on this thread is the first time I have stated that Bush may have lied. It was not a blanket statement accusing him of all manner of mendacity, but specific to the discussion at hand.

To reiterate, I said: "For Bush to say a few days later that "no one anticipated the breach of the levees" was either an outright falsehood or he wasn't listening to what he was being told." Frankly I think that's quite different from what you are implying.

And, whether you get tired of the "Bush Lied" screeds or not is irrelevant, since I've not indulged in one. I find the personal attack completely unwarranted and the veiled threat of banning is enti