I agree with accepting personal responsibility and consequences. I have been somewhat removed from state-side politics lately, but it is not far-fetched that the mayor and governor screwed up.

Its ironic that you and other neo-cons on this board recite personal responsbility like a mantra, and then ignore the obvious failings of your own president.

First of all, your boy George was warned about the potentially devestating effects of a major flooding since last year. He ignored the advice of scientists, expert, and the Army Corps of Engineers about the deteriorating levees and diverted the budget and National Guard to Iraq instead. As an urban planner, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a local emergency plan under such dire conditions. That is a fantasy, and worse of all a pathetic dodge of intellectual and personal responsibility of the policies which you support.

This is the SECOND major diaster in the Country under the incompetent, and the SECOND time he ignored explicit warnings from the people trained to know better. But no worries, there's always someone to take the fall. There were scapegoats following 9/11, and there will be more again.

He is the supposed Commander in Chief, and yet he passes the buck and the blame, every time. What a fine example of personal responsibility.

Its ironic that you and other neo-cons on this board ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jeez, Kat, I'm hardly a neo-con.

Frankly, the American far right scares the crap out of me every bit as much as the American far left. I'm very often in disagreement with many far right views on abortion, drug control, etc. Similarly, I'm very often disagreement with many far left views on social programs and other big-brother-ish government provided services.

I'm more of a centrist Jeffersonian, i.e., the government that governs best, governs least. As far as I'm concerned, government should exist to provide for common defense, basic civil infrastructure, foreign relations, taking care of those who cannot care for themselves, a hand-up for those who need it, and very little else.

If these views make me a neo-con, then perhaps you ought to join Butterfly in taking a closer look at Webster's.

He is the supposed Commander in Chief...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, yes that is true.

But unlike Stalin-era Berlin and Saddam-era Iraq, these forces are not permitted by law to march on demand through every town, city and state without proper procedure and due process. Even Bush or Clinton or anyone else as President can't change this.

It's a couple of wonderful things called the balance of power and the system of checks and balances, that purposely prevent these kinds of things from happening, for the benefit of long term stability in the country.

The pervasive viewpoint of everything that could go wrong in NO did go wrong in NO, therefore it's all the President's fault, is simply ludicrous!

Bush is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, yes that is true.

But unlike Stalin-era Berlin and Saddam-era Iraq, these forces are not permitted by law to march on demand through every town, city and state without proper procedure and due process.

True, only in other countries.

I heard last night when I was up the pub, that some South American and Carribean countries (I think Honduras was mentioned) have offered assistance, anyone have information about this..?

totster 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heard too that even the Froggies are throwing in a few francs...

Whoopie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe they should send you potatoes for your freedom fries instead ?

Its ironic that you and other neo-cons on this board ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jeez, Kat, I'm hardly a neo-con.

Frankly, the American far right scares the crap out of me every bit as much as the American far left. I'm very often in disagreement with many far right views on abortion, drug control, etc. Similarly, I'm very often disagreement with many far left views on social programs and other big-brother-ish government provided services.

I'm more of a centrist Jeffersonian, i.e., the government that governs best, governs least. As far as I'm concerned, government should exist to provide for common defense, basic civil infrastructure, foreign relations, taking care of those who cannot care for themselves, a hand-up for those who need it, and very little else.

If these views make me a neo-con, then perhaps you ought to join Butterfly in taking a closer look at Webster's.

He is the supposed Commander in Chief...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, yes that is true.

But unlike Stalin-era Berlin and Saddam-era Iraq, these forces are not permitted by law to march on demand through every town, city and state without proper procedure and due process. Even Bush or Clinton or anyone else as President can't change this.

It's a couple of wonderful things called the balance of power and the system of checks and balances, that purposely prevent these kinds of things from happening, for the benefit of long term stability in the country.

The pervasive viewpoint of everything that could go wrong in NO did go wrong in NO, therefore it's all the President's fault, is simply ludicrous!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry if I affixed an unwanted title on you. But, most of your arguments are no different than those of a conservative Libertarian, which in many cases, echo many neo-conservative tenets.

Your words: "As far as I'm concerned, government should exist to provide for common defense, basic civil infrastructure, foreign relations, taking care of those who cannot care for themselves, a hand-up for those who need it, and very little else."

But then you arguments conclude that none of the emergency response or lack thereof were W's fault; a contradiction, don't you think?

I heard last night when I was up the pub, that some South American and Carribean countries (I think Honduras was mentioned) have offered assistance, anyone have information about this..?

totster 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heard too that even the Froggies are throwing in a few francs...

Whoopie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe they should send you potatos for your freedom fries instead ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its ironic that you and other neo-cons on this board ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jeez, Kat, I'm hardly a neo-con.

Frankly, the American far right scares the crap out of me every bit as much as the American far left. I'm very often in disagreement with many far right views on abortion, drug control, etc. Similarly, I'm very often disagreement with many far left views on social programs and other big-brother-ish government provided services.

I'm more of a centrist Jeffersonian, i.e., the government that governs best, governs least. As far as I'm concerned, government should exist to provide for common defense, basic civil infrastructure, foreign relations, taking care of those who cannot care for themselves, a hand-up for those who need it, and very little else.

If these views make me a neo-con, then perhaps you ought to join Butterfly in taking a closer look at Webster's.

He is the supposed Commander in Chief...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, yes that is true.

But unlike Stalin-era Berlin and Saddam-era Iraq, these forces are not permitted by law to march on demand through every town, city and state without proper procedure and due process. Even Bush or Clinton or anyone else as President can't change this.

And what, exactly are the Commander in Chief's responsibilities, from the moment a State governor declares an emergency - as the Louisiana governor, Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, did on August 26?

This is what the President did:

August 28 - During the day, Bush declares a state of emergency in Mississippi and orders federal assistance

August 30 - The U.S. military starts to move ships and helicopters to the region at the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

August 31 - President Bush flies over the Gulf Coast in Air Force One to survey the damage. He later announces a major federal mobilization to help the victims.

It's a couple of wonderful things called the balance of power and the system of checks and balances, that purposely prevent these kinds of things from happening, for the benefit of long term stability in the country.

The pervasive viewpoint of everything that could go wrong in NO did go wrong in NO, therefore it's all the President's fault, is simply ludicrous!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another time-line that may be of interest:

This outlines the fate of both FEMA and flood control projects in New Orleans under the Bush administration.

January 2001: Bush appoints Joe Allbaugh, a crony from Texas, as head of FEMA. Allbaugh has no previous experience in disaster management.

April 2001: Budget Director Mitch Daniels announces the Bush administration's goal of privatizing much of FEMA's work. In May, Allbaugh confirms that FEMA will be downsized: "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program...." he said. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."

2001: FEMA designates a major hurricane hitting New Orleans as one of the three "likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country."

December 2002: After less than two years at FEMA, Allbaugh announces he is leaving to start up a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do business in Iraq. He is succeeded by his deputy and former college roommate, Michael Brown, who has no previous experience in disaster management and was fired from his previous job for mismanagement.

March 2003: FEMA is downgraded from a cabinet level position and folded into the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission is refocused on fighting acts of terrorism.

2003: Under its new organization chart within DHS, FEMA's preparation and planning functions are reassigned to a new Office of Preparedness and Response. FEMA will henceforth focus only on response and recovery.

Summer 2004: FEMA denies Louisiana's pre-disaster mitigation funding requests. Says Jefferson Parish flood zone manager Tom Rodrigue: "You would think we would get maximum consideration....This is what the grant program called for. We were more than qualified for it."

June 2004: The Army Corps of Engineers budget for levee construction in New Orleans is slashed. Jefferson Parish emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri comments: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay."

June 2005: Funding for the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is cut by a record $71.2 million. One of the hardest-hit areas is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes.

August 2005: While New Orleans is undergoing a slow motion catastrophe, Bush mugs for the cameras, cuts a cake for John McCain, plays the guitar for Mark Wills, delivers an address about V-J day, and continues with his vacation. When he finally gets around to acknowledging the scope of the unfolding disaster, he delivers only a photo op on Air Force One and a flat, defensive, laundry list speech in the Rose Garden.

So: A crony with no relevant experience was installed as head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans were slashed even though it was known to be one of the top three risks in the country. FEMA was deliberately downsized as part of the Bush administration's conservative agenda to reduce the role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA's preparation and planning functions were taken away.

Actions have consequences. No one could predict that a hurricane the size of Katrina would hit this year, but the slow federal response when it did happen was no accident. It was the result of four years of deliberate Republican policy and budget choices that favor ideology and partisan loyalty at the expense of operational competence.

It's the Bush administration in a nutshell.

Budgets are slashed everyday I am afraid - yes their are consequences as we can obviously see. The problem goes down to mentality- from the govt level to the individual person. "It will never happen, so lets stick our heads in the sand and ignore it" 99.9% odds are with you, but .1% comes along and well you are in deep shi*e.

To lay the blame on the yank federal govt is too easy and obvious. They get some of it, but most in my eyes goes toward the state/local govt and lastly those that stayed.

"Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program...." he said. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."

That pretty much sums up the neo-conservative/libertarian approach to everything. And now, we have the results of the Bush Administration's incompetence and intentional neglect in NOs. And as usual, it's devestating for everyone except them.

It's disgusting, and I have nothing more to say on this thread. Why bother.

Thanks TM, for going through the trouble of collecting all the pieces and putting them together in one post. It's undeniable to everyone except for those who make excuses for the inexcusable.

Budgets are slashed everyday I am afraid - yes their are consequences as we can obviously see. The problem goes down to mentality- from the govt level to the individual person. "It will never happen, so lets stick our heads in the sand and ignore it" 99.9% odds are with you, but .1% comes along and well you are in deep shi*e.

To lay the blame on the yank federal govt is too easy and obvious. They get some of it, but most in my eyes goes toward the state/local govt and lastly those that stayed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about the ones that stayed that had no money and nowhere to go?

Kat's right on the money. FEMA not only was supposed to take responsibility for the management of emergency operations, but also TURNED DOWN offers of help from other cities, institutions (Chicago and the Red Cross, for example) while miserably failing. What does the F in FEMA stand for? Federal! Who does the buck stop with for federal agencies? The president.

It probably didn't help that the last job held by the current director of FEMA was commissioner of some d*** Arabian Horse Society out in California (I'm not making this up). No doubt this was supposed to be a plum job in return for campaign contributions or something- never expected him to have to work.

There was a news story somewhere (I'll try to find it again) about 3 Duke students who were so disgusted by what they saw on the news that they snuck into NO posing as journalists in order to rescue 2 or 3 married couples- succeeding where FEMA failed.

Perhaps the real conservatives are right and we DON'T need so much government- because the one we have certainly doesn't seem to be helping much.

"Steven"

Interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9231761/

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Louisiana is a city that is largely underwater.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Well, there‘s your problem right there. If ever a slip of the tongue defined a government‘s response to a crisis.

Forget the history of slashed federal budgets for projects that might have saved the levees. Drop the imagery of the government watching “Monty Python‘s Flying Circus” while New Orleans drowned. Ignore the symbol of bureaucrats like Mr. Chertoff using only the future tense in terms of relief that they could have supplied Monday and Tuesday.

We no longer need the president sounding like he‘s on some sort of five-day tape delay to summarize this debacle. We now have Mr. Chertoff‘s indelible announcement that Louisiana is a city. Politician after politician, Republican and Democrat alike, has paraded before us, unwilling or unable to shut off the I/me switch in their heads, condescendingly telling us about how moved they were or how devastated they were, congenitally incapable of telling the difference between the destruction of a city and the opening of a new supermarket somewhere.

And as that sorry recital of self-absorption dragged on, I have resisted editorial comment. The focus needed to be on the efforts to save the stranded. Even television‘s meager powers were correctly devoted to telling the stories of the twin disasters, natural and government-made.

But now, at last, it has stopped getting exponentially worse in Mississippi and Alabama and New Orleans and Louisiana, the state, not the city. And having given our leaders what we now know is the week or so they need to get their acts together, that period of editorial silence I mentioned should come to an end.

No one is suggesting that mayors or governors in the afflicted areas, nor the federal government, should be able to stop hurricanes. Lord knows, no one is suggesting that we should ever prioritize levee improvement for a below-sea-level city ahead of $454 million worth of trophy bridges for the politicians of Alaska.

But, nationally, these are leaders who won reelection last year largely by portraying their opponents as incapable of keeping this country safe. These are leaders who regularly pressure the news media in this country to report the reopening of a school or a power station in Iraq and which regularly defies its citizens not to stand up and cheer when something like that is accomplished.

Yet, they couldn‘t even keep one school or power station from being devastated by infrastructure collapse in New Orleans, even though the government had heard all the chatter from the scientists and city planners and hurricane centers and some group whose purposes the government couldn‘t quite discern, a group called the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Most chillingly of all, this is the law and order and terror government. It promised protection, or at least amelioration, against all threats, conventional, radiological or biological. It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.

Mr. Bush has now twice insisted that—quote—“We are not satisfied”—unquote—with the response to the manifold tragedies along the Gulf Coast. I wonder which “we” he thinks he is speaking for on this point. Perhaps it is the administration, although we still don‘t know where some of them are. Anybody seen the vice president lately, the man whose message this time last year was, I will protect you; the other guy might let you die? I don‘t know which “we” Mr. Bush meant.

For many of this country‘s citizens, the mantra has been, as we were taught in social studies it should always be, whether or not I voted for this president, he is still my president. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect, also, a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to ‘08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government, our government: New Orleans.

For him, it is a shame, in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there and he might not have looked so much like a 21st century Marie Antoinette. All that was needed was just a quick, “I‘m not satisfied with my government‘s response,” instead of hiding behind phrases like “no one could have foreseen.”

Had he only remembered Churchill‘s quote from the 1930s. “The responsibility of government for the public safety,” Churchill said, “is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact the prime object for which governments come into existence.”

In forgetting that, the current administration did not merely damage itself. It damaged our confidence in our ability to rely on whoever is in the White House.

As we emphasized to you here all last week, the realities of the region are such that New Orleans is going to be largely uninhabitable for a lot longer than anybody is yet willing to recognize. Lord knows when the last body will be found or the last artifact of the levee break dug up. Could be next March. Could be the year 2100.

By then, in the muck and toxic mire of New Orleans, they may even find our government‘s credibility, somewhere in the city of Louisiana.

Respondents also disagreed widely on who is to blame for the problems in the city following the hurricane -- 13 percent said Bush, 18 percent said federal agencies, 25 percent blamed state or local officials and 38 percent said no one is to blame. And 63 percent said they do not believe anyone at federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired as a result - CNN

Kat's right on the money.  FEMA not only was supposed to ..........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, Steven, but you and Kat are at the least misdirected and more likely very mistaken.

As indicated in this post:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...ic=41508&st=225

The mayor has the primary responsibility for evacuating and taking care of the people in the event of impending disaster.

The governor and all the resources at her disposal are the second line of preparation, defense and caregiving.

FEMA's responsibility is to go in and help local authorities respond to a disaster after it happens, and after local authorities make arrangements with the federal government to supercede all the various state and local laws and procedures.

While FEMA's response could easily be classified as unremarkable, and I would certainly not dispute that, it is nonsensical to place the entire blame on FEMA, or the President as the ultimate boss of FEMA.

You want to argue that FEMA got there late? That their response could have been better? That someone should be held partially responsible? Sure, I'll go along with that.

But tell me one large government bureaucracy that works well under any presidential administration? It's a real easy number. You make it by putting your thumb and forefinger together and making a circle. Things happen at the federal level despite the bureaucracy, not because of it.

But before we even get to that point, let's operate as things in America are designed to operate, from the bottom up rather than the top down.

Q. Who is the main person responsible for a person's welfare?

A. The person themself of course.

Q. Who is the local authority repsonsible for helping local citizens when they are overwhelmed?

A. The mayor.

Q. Who is the regional authority responsible for helping the mayor and local citizens, when they are overwhelmed?

A. The governor.

Q. Who is the national authority responsible for helping the local citizens, the mayor and the governor, when they are overwhelmed?

A. The federal and charitable agencies, as well as individual donors.

Last time I checked, this is what happened:

- The mayor choked and failed in both planning and in execution of emergency plans.

- The governor choked and failed in both planning and execution of emergency plans.

- The federal agencies admittedly got there late, but they got there, and most of what happened there happened because of them, not despite them. (contrary to popular opinion)

So fine, you want to blame FEMA and Bush for everything that went wrong. Feel free. Be my guest. It won't change the fact that for the large percentile, your energies in extolling blame would be very much misdirected.

Hmmm... why is it that the mayor and governor *choked*, rather than were overwhelmed? This is being billed as the worst American natural disaster of the modern age, after all.... what was the governor supposed to be able to do about it? (Details, please).

And, if the federal agencies were ULTIMATELY responsible when local and state agencies are overwhelmed- as I believe they surely were- then yes, it's the PRESIDENT to whom the buck passes. Sorry, Charley- with great power comes great responsibility, etc., etc.

"Steven"

I am a citizen of the US of A but I am not a citizen of New Orleans...so its interesting for me to think about the inadequacies of the New Oleans municipal gov't.....likewise I am not a citizen of Louisiana...so its interesting for me to think about the inadequacies of the administration that is currently running the gov't of the state of Louisiana.

As an American citizen it is my duty to focus some attention on the performance of the federal gov't because I am a voter and I must decide if I think there should be a change of personel in the decision makers or not.....my responsibility here is to evaluate the federal response, not the local response.

Maybe now the good Americans who voted for "Lame Duck George" will see why he was ridiculed in Western Europe and elsewhere from day 1.

If I ever see this incompetent President utter anything else other than a cliche, I'll be very surprised, I haven't seen him string a meaningful sentence together in 6 yrs..

Michael's (?) video was rt on the money.

I think this quote from Polly Toynbee's article in today's Guardian sums up some my feelings on the Katrina disaster and the attitudes on these threads expressed by the so-called "patriots of America".

What the great Louisiana catastrophe has revealed is a country that is not a country at all, but atomised, segmented individuals living parallel lives as far apart as possible, with nothing to unite them beyond the idea of a flag. The 40 million with no health insurance show the social dysfunction corroding US capacity. For the poor at the bottom of the New Orleans mud heap, there never was even the American dream to cling to. They always lived in another country.

The born-agains absolve themselves from sympathy with the victims by explaining Katrina as God's wrath on the Sodom-and-Gomorrah sins of New Orleans. But it took the mother of the nation, Barbara Bush, to perfectly capture rich America's distance from the scene. Visiting refugees in the Houston Astrodome, she pronounced them lucky: "So many of the people were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." She let slip darker fears: "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas." Katrina lifts the lid on the hidden America invisible in sitcoms, but above all shows how the rich don't acknowledge shared nationhood with the rest.

TM, that's an excellent choice of quote - cheers!

we have the results of the Bush Administration's incompetence and intentional neglect in NOs

What do you mean by this, kat?

FEMA denies Louisiana's pre-disaster mitigation funding requests

Do you know what this is? What are you implying it means concerning this discussion, mert?

Just Google it.

Powell criticises storm response

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said he fails to understand why better preparations were not made before Hurricane Katrina struck.

Two-thirds of Americans think President George W Bush could have done more to tackle the floods and damage in the south, one opinion poll suggests.

There were "a lot of failures at a lot of levels - local, state and federal", Mr Powell told ABC.

"There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans - not enough was done," he said.

It "should have been a blinding flash of the obvious... that when you order a mandatory evacuation, you can't expect everybody to evacuate on their own", he said.

I like Powell, I wish he would run.

I like Powell, I wish he would run.

Condi Rice would be an even better choice.

I like Powell, I wish he would run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Condi Rice would be an even better choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An academic...you have got to be joking. Powell hands down.

I like Powell, I wish he would run.

Condi Rice would be an even better choice.

An academic...you have got to be joking. Powell hands down.

One last off-topic:

Oliver North is the Man!

Would make a great President...

I like Powell, I wish he would run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Condi Rice would be an even better choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An academic...you have got to be joking. Powell hands down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One last off-topic:

Oliver North is the Man!

Would make a great President...of Iran.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it's Send In The Clowns time boys...

Dem 9/11 Commissioner Calls For Jimmy Carter To Head Rebuilding Of New Orleans

Fri Sep 09 2005 12:01:20 ET

This morning on Fox's "Fox and Friends," former Indiana Democrat congressman and 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer called on President Bush to name former President Jimmy Carter to the head of efforts to rebuild New Orleans.

Roemer told the stunned hosts: "The second thing we should do is put somebody like former President Jimmy Carter in charge of rebuilding New Orleans."

Well, it's Send In The Clowns time boys...

Dem 9/11 Commissioner Calls For Jimmy Carter To Head Rebuilding Of New Orleans

Fri Sep 09 2005 12:01:20 ET

This morning on Fox's "Fox and Friends," former Indiana Democrat congressman and 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer called on President Bush to name former President Jimmy Carter to the head of efforts to rebuild New Orleans.

Roemer told the stunned hosts: "The second thing we should do is put somebody like former President Jimmy Carter in charge of rebuilding New Orleans."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you know what they say, in the Government of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Donald Trump is the man for rebuilding. He's a clown too, but he gets results in Construction.