quote:You do realize that you haven't so much as offered a counterargument? All you've done is adopt a smug attitude that my arguments are inaccurate, unfounded or unworthy.
And you've made inaccurate statements and gross accusations.
I've demonstrated that FEMA was on site on MONDAY, the day the levee breached. You claimed Bush didn't "send in help until it [was] too late for thousands who have died."
FEMA was onsite Monday, the day the levee breached. Too little help does not equal no help.
Your statement was inaccurate.
quote:You've demonstrateed time and time again that when you don't like what you're hearing all you have do do is lob insinuations of dismissal at those you're arguing with, and then praise yourself for having won the argument. Well, the guy in Michigan was murdered for his atheism. Nothing changed that, but you sure made the argument go away.
All I did was point out that I was skeptical and the reasons why, in one post. I didn't say it didn't happen. I said the reporting was shoddy, and the lack of mention anywhere else was suspicious.
You kept pressing me on it. I had nothing to do with any argument going away.
Edit: As for "lobbing insinuations," you are the one who has taken it upon yourself to accuse the president of slashing flood control as political punishment, despite the fact funding levels are higher than they were under Clinton, despite the fact that Lousianna gets more Army Corps money than any other state, and despite the fact that the Louisiana congressional district is quite capable of getting projects they consider important passed.
quote:y the way, my belief that BushCo. defunded the New Orleans flood control effort for political retribution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. I doubt it is likely to be tested, but it is not unfounded. The funding was cut. No one disputes that. The city did vote in large numbers for Kerry. No one disputes that either. And BushCo. has made it absolutely clear that anyone who doesn't support him gets fired, gets discredited, gets outed, gets the finger. The evidence is circumstantial, that I'll give you, but the claim is not unfounded.
All quotes from a washington post article linked by Bob in another thread:
quote:In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.
Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.
For example, after a $194 million deepening project for the Port of Iberia flunked a Corps cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) tucked language into an emergency Iraq spending bill ordering the agency to redo its calculations. The Corps also spends tens of millions of dollars a year dredging little-used waterways such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Atchafalaya River and the Red River -- now known as the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, in honor of the project's congressional godfather -- for barge traffic that is less than forecast.
quote:But overall, the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects.
quote:"We've been hollering about funding for years, but everyone would say: There goes Louisiana again, asking for more money," said former Democratic senator John Breaux. "We've had some powerful people in powerful places, but we never got what we needed."
That may be true. But those powerful people -- including former senators Breaux, Johnston and Russell Long, as well as former House committee chairmen Robert Livingston and W.J. "Billy" Tauzin -- did get quite a bit of what they wanted. And the current delegation -- led by Landrieu and GOP Sen. David Vitter -- has continued that tradition.
The Senate's latest budget bill for the Corps included 107 Louisiana projects worth $596 million, including $15 million for the Industrial Canal lock, for which the Bush administration had proposed no funding. Landrieu said the bill would "accelerate our flood control, navigation and coastal protection programs." Vitter said he was "grateful that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee were persuaded of the importance of these projects."
quote:The Bush administration has proposed cuts in the Corps budget, and has tried to shift the agency's emphasis from new construction to overdue maintenance. But most of those proposals have died quietly on Capitol Hill, and the administration has not fought too hard to revive them.
In fact, more than any other federal agency, the Corps is controlled by Congress; its $4.7 billion civil works budget consists almost entirely of "earmarks" inserted by individual legislators. The Corps must determine that the economic benefits of its projects exceed the costs, but marginal projects such as the Port of Iberia deepening -- which squeaked by with a 1.03 benefit-cost ratio -- are as eligible for funding as the New Orleans levees.
"It has been explicit national policy not to set priorities, but instead to build any flood control or barge project if the Corps decides the benefits exceed the costs by 1 cent," said Tim Searchinger, a senior attorney at Environmental Defense. "Saving New Orleans gets no more emphasis than draining wetlands to grow corn and soybeans."
posted
As to FEMA turning away supplies, here's my story:
My mother in law has a very large house, with 7 bedrooms. We're not in a very good location, but some families are travelling long distances to find shelter.
Anyway, my wife and I have been trying to find out how to make this house available to victims of Katrina, but according to the local Red Cross, FEMA apparently shut down a website that was trying to make connections between people who need shelter and people who are offering shelter. There are other websites, but Red Cross was hesitant to make recomendations, because FEMA is refusing to allow refugees to be housed anywhwere that is not pre-approved by them.
Right now we're following a different avenue, since my wife works for a college, and many colleges are accepting students with minimum application hassle, as long as they are confirmed as being students at schools in the affected area. Since the school is a community college, with no dorms, we may be able to provide housing for those students. Cross your fingers.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is your link that FEMA didn't arrive until whenever it is you say they did? Don't hold me to some standard of proof you haven't even attempted to meet.
quote:Despite all the talk of nonexistent federal help, aid did arrive early on, even before Katrina hit. FEMA moved supplies from logistics centers in Atlanta and Denton, Texas, to Baton Rouge and the New Orleans airport. The agency positioned seven search and rescue teams and 23 medical assistance teams from Tennessee to Texas. About 7,000 National Guard troops were deployed in the state. Army Corps personnel started securing the locks, floodgates and other equipment.
posted
May I point out that merely having FEMA onsite doesn't necessarily constitute help. According to everyone I've talked to who was in New Orleans Monday, saying FEMA was on site then might be a stretch.
They may have been there, but the presence was minimal, and I certainly didn't here of them doing anything of significance until at least Wednesday.
Glenn, Claiming that GW made the funding disappear is a little too paranoid for me. Louisiana as a whole is very Republican, even though N.O. isn't.
Dag, Louisiana, while still getting a good chunk of Corps money when compared to other states, was allocated much less than what they needed and what they were promised.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:May I point out that merely having FEMA onsite doesn't necessarily constitute help.
There's a difference between "didn't send help" and "the help sent was inadequate." Glenn has chosen to stake out the former position as part of his attacks on the administration.
quote:Louisiana, while still getting a good chunk of Corps money when compared to other states, was allocated much less than what they needed and what they were promised.
It's not just "a good chunk," it's more than any other state. And the Lousiana delegation has been successful in getting that money earmarked as they want.
Did they get what they asked for? No. No one ever does.
Bush requested more money for NOLA flood control money than Clinton did in a comparable period. Only slightly more, but it's still demonstrative of the fact that no penal action was taken.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.
Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.
Now the important part (bold mine):
quote:Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.
It's not a case of getting what they asked for. This money was promised, allocated, then cut to make room for Iraq.
It's a lovely smoke and mirrors tactic to compare the funding for Louisiana and other states, but it just doesn't hold up. Whether or not Louisiana got more money than California is irrelevant. It's Army Corps funding, and Louisiana has more Army Corp dollars tied up than any other state because they have the need for them.
One more:
quote:The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.
posted
So that's even more evidence that it wasn't because the city voted for Kerry.
Further, the money was cut from what it would have been had one particular budget plan been followed.
But the amount requested by the Bush administration was still higher than what Clinton requested in a comparable time period.
In summary:
1.) The absolute levels requested by Bush were higher than those requested by Clinton.
2.) The cuts to the projected increases were started before the election which supposedly motivated the cuts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presidents don't request funds in a situation like this. The Army Corp district in Louisiana puts together its yearly budget (which had been approved the year before) only to find that much of the money promised was not there. This is not unusual for federal funding.
What's unusual is the amount which was cut.
From The Washington Post:
quote:For instance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested $27 million for this fiscal year to pay for hurricane protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration countered with $3.9 million, and Congress eventually provided $5.7 million, according to figures provided by the office of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
They got less than one-quarter of what they requested. This is money that would have directly affected the integrity of the levees.
The other thing that I can't believe is that shoring up the levees is a project that began in 1965 and was supposed to be finished in 10 years. So it's run 30 years long (and still isn't finished).
The reason I don't like the comparison between Clinton and Bush is that they aren't on equal footing. The economy is totally different, and we're fighting a war now. It's not apples to apples. It's like saying the absolute temperature in Colorado is greater than the absolute temperature in Texas. If you're measuring one in the summer and one in the winter that's not a very good comparison.
And I'm not sure if you're directing the Kerry comment at me, but I agree with you that the cuts weren't political retribution, as I indicated in my previous post.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Presidents don't request funds in a situation like this. The Army Corp district in Louisiana puts together its yearly budget (which had been approved the year before) only to find that much of the money promised was not there. This is not unusual for federal funding.
The President does too request money. Every year (theoretically, it's been missed before) the president submits a budget to Congress. It's done on the project level for Army Corps budgets. In the Navy, the budgets were created at the division level, passed up to HQ, reviewed by the DoN at the Pentagon, then reviewed by DoD, then reviewed by OMB, then submitted to Congress.
I have physically printed the books that get submitted to Congress for the analogous budget items for the Navy.
The budgets generally run out about 10-15 years. Historical information is given where relevant. The years that are beyond the end of the current congressional cycle are called "out years." The out year numbers change from budget to budget all the time.
quote:And I'm not sure if you're directing the Kerry comment at me, but I agree with you that the cuts weren't political retribution, as I indicated in my previous post.
I know. But your post provides further evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You claimed Bush didn't "send in help until it [was] too late for thousands who have died.""
Ah, I see. You're complaint of inaccuracy boils down to the fact that I should have used the word "enough" before the word "help." I could also concede that I used Bush as the target, rather than Brown, which would have been more accurate.
" Where is your link that FEMA didn't arrive until whenever it is you say they did? Don't hold me to some standard of proof you haven't even attempted to meet."
In that link you claim supports your argument, in the article titled: "FEMA Chief Sent Help Only After Storm Hit."
Ok, I read the article about spending on water projects in Louisiana.
Frankly, this doesn't surprise me. Louisiana is certainly not exempt from this kind of political B.S. But the article is also rather disingenuous in lumping a bunch of pork barrel projects together simply because they were all water projects, and all Army corps of engineers.
This makes it difficult to sort out the issues, because despite the similarity between the projects, they aren't necessarily related. A project that upgrades a lock, or deepens a channel so tankers can get through has nothing to do with a project that is intended to prevent flooding.
As has been pointed out by several people here, the prediction that New Orleans was set up for this particular disaster has been well publicized before the storm, and the descriptions almost exactly predicted what happened.
quote: Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.
Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate.
This makes it sound as if money was diverted from flood control projects, but it's actually talking about independent projects.
quote: Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke Aug. 30.
quote: Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects.
Now this is the chief of the Corps itself talking, saying that the levee would not have been fixed. Yet the concern in the descriptions before Katrina centered on the fact that the ground under the levees was subsiding, and that the levees (or maybe the ground under them) needed to be shored up. That was the concern, and that was the request that's making the headlines. It may be perfectly true that the repairs wouldn't have been done in time for this storm, but that doesn't alter the intent.
What I find I'm seeing in this article is that projects that support industry got funded, even when it was of very questionable value, but projects that would have protected the city got paid short shrift. The inhabitants of the city protested against the commercial projects, but were ignored.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: The other thing that I can't believe is that shoring up the levees is a project that began in 1965 and was supposed to be finished in 10 years.
quote:Ah, I see. You're complaint of inaccuracy boils down to the fact that I should have used the word "enough" before the word "help." I could also concede that I used Bush as the target, rather than Brown, which would have been more accurate.
The inadequacies of the federal response are Bush's to answer for, not Brown's. And accuracy is important when it's the basis for your charge of political punishment.
quote: As has been pointed out by several people here, the prediction that New Orleans was set up for this particular disaster has been well publicized before the storm, and the descriptions almost exactly predicted what happened.
Yes. I haven't ever disputed this.
quote:This makes it sound as if money was diverted from flood control projects, but it's actually talking about independent projects.
The money is part of the same appropriation process. Of course they're different projects - one was funded adequately, one wasn't. The point is that Lousisianna's congressional delegation was the one who made their earmark requests in this fashion.
quote:What I find I'm seeing in this article is that projects that support industry got funded, even when it was of very questionable value, but projects that would have protected the city got paid short shrift. The inhabitants of the city protested against the commercial projects, but were ignored.
A trend that has existed for at least 20 years, which makes it hard for it to be the result of retribution for an election 1 year (or even 5 years) ago. The specific levee problem was discovered in 1995, I believe. That's 10 years ago.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The inadequacies of the federal response are Bush's to answer for, not Brown's. And accuracy is important when it's the basis for your charge of political punishment."
Except that they were two different accusations. I made that explicit in the post. Being late with help was simply an accusation of incompetence. You have apparently conflated the two accusations.
I also said in a follow up post that I don't blame Bush for the political retribution.
quote: It's perfectly reasonable to look back with hindsight and see that when the destruction of New Orleans was merely a possibility, the Bush administration cut funding that would be wasted if this storm had never materialized.
That's not what I'm blaming him for.
What I'm blaming him for is his reaction when this disaster was all but inevitable.
posted
In yesterday's White House press briefing a question came up about LA Gov. Blanco's request for Federal assistance:
quote:MR. McCLELLAN: If you go back to that time period, we were in close contact with governors and local officials. And if you recall, that the request for -- and the disaster declaration is issued by the President, but it comes at the request of the state. And that's why we were consulting closely, and I think we mentioned this at the time, with the governors. And Governor Blanco got a request into us ahead of time so that we could issue that disaster declaration.
Now, in terms of the National Guard troops, I think that General Blum and the military have talked about how things were pre-positioned in the region, and I would leave it to them to describe the deployment of military troops and the requests that were made. I think they've been briefing on that the last couple of days and --
Q My question, though, I think was, did Governor Blanco ask the President for the dispatch --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of that, David, and I don't want to try to get into going back through every single detail of this. I mean, we're going to look at all this. Right now we're trying to stay focused on what's ahead, not what's passed, because we need -- ...
(Emphasis mine.)
Now, I may be seeing ghosts, but this makes it sound as if it is at least possible that an 'early request' occurred -- certainly with the aim of expediting aid -- but that because it was early, no trigger existed for the actual dispatch of said aid.
I read today that Jeb Bush (FL) similarly declared for Federal disaster status early, so it is probably common with major forecasted events.
Does anyone know the prescribed chain of request-declaration-dispatch and whether this 'early' requesting practice might have contributed to the impression we're getting that nobody said (soon enough), "Okay, NOW! Send help NOW!"?
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The inadequacies of the federal response are Bush's to answer for, not Brown's. And accuracy is important when it's the basis for your charge of political punishment."
On the basis of accountability, I agree. On the basis of who actually acted belatedly, or with inadequate urgency, the article I cited points to Brown.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Does anyone know the prescribed chain of request-declaration-dispatch and whether this 'early' requesting practice might have contributed to the impression we're getting that nobody said (soon enough), "Okay, NOW! Send help NOW!"?
A number of laws are cited in the letter Gov Blanco sent to Bush. I suspect figuring out what it all means is quite a research project.
posted
Actually I guess the only law is the stafford act, but the wording changes. That might make it easier.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have both libertarian, and socialist leanings. I can't decide in this case which I should listen to.
I think it's safe to say that the LA governor is a nut case, when she's waiting for testing on water that was already causing infections. It's now is proven to be 10 times over the safe bacteria limit and I haven't yet seen the blurb saying that she *is* authorizing mandatory evacuations as she said she would yesterday *if* the water came back bad. I think the NO mayor is a loser too, because while anger at a situation is acceptable, hysterics from someone in leadership are pointless.
It seems to me that the LA government is both corrupt and inept. (Contrasting, IL politics are probably as corrupt but certainly not as inept.) So at what point does the federal government step in and override states rights? These incompetent leaders were legally elected.
On an extreme end one could argue that the citizens of Louisiana and New Orleans are getting the what they deserve for electing crappy leaders...I'm not making that argument, because no one deserves to die from a natural disaster. But again, the people with the most immediate local power were all legally elected leaders...
Chicago also has the largest political corruption branch of the Feds in the country. This is what keeps the corrupt elected officials up here, from being totally inept. If you are going to do something under the table, you've got to be at least intelligent enough to hold the Feds at bay. (Mayor Daley Jr. is much less intelligent than his father but still not entirely dumb.) I think that, an expansion of the same wing in Louisiana is an absolute necessity. The descriptions of even pre-flood New Orleans sound like 1930s Chicago.
I don't actually think FEMA or Homeland Security can save us from the worst parts of ourselves. Only corruption prosecutors can, unfortunately.
I actually suspect that the reason why they haven't done more corruption prosecution down there, is because they'd be targeted as being racist, since the population down there just happens to have a large black percentage. I'd also suspect that it's more dangerous for a Fed prosecutor down there, than it is in Chicago, where the corrupt element, while still occasionally getting violent, attempts to have a veneer of civilization.
To sum up: while I have a strong socialist side, I still wish to protect states abilities to run their own affairs. I believe that the best way to improve the social services and emergency response within a state, is to weed out the corruption, rather than expanding the authority of federal government, for emergencies. If there are/were people of higher character (and/or intelligence) in state and local offices, I believe there is much less obfuscation in a true crisis.
I also think that this can be evidenced during this crisis, in other areas who were also hard hit. I'm not pointing at one party or the other. I want them both to show more balls and leadership.
quote:On an extreme end one could argue that the citizens of Louisiana and New Orleans are getting the what they deserve for electing crappy leaders...I'm not making that argument, because no one deserves to die from a natural disaster. But again, the people with the most immediate local power were all legally elected leaders...
Of course I agree no one deserves to die at any time but you bring up a good point. Someone mentioned in one of my classes today that the people of New Orleans had been clamoring for something to be done about the levees for years and the federal govt ignored them. The prof. then asked if anyone disagreed and I raised my hand. I then asked the person who made the statement if he was a native New Orleanian, and he said no, he'd never been there.
So, I told him that as someone that had lived there, I never remembered shoring up the levees being a key issue people talked about or that was a campaign issue for any politician. And that if the people of New Orleans really did live in fear every day that the levees were inadequate (an attitude I never witnessed) why weren't they electing local officials and state officials who would do something about it?
Now word is coming out that federal funds WERE sent, and diverted to other projects by the local officials.
The sad truth is no one spent money on shoring up the levees because it wasn't something that people thought about too much. It's like insurance, you never know how much you'll need until you need it. You can read all kinds of articles telling you how important it is to have health insurance and be warned that your insurance isn't adequate, but most people hate to spend money on it until one day you have a heart attack and are stuck with a huge hospital bill. Poor analogy, I know, but it's true that we often put off spending money on things that fit into the category of "We might need this someday" when we're not sure if someday will ever come.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"FEMA was onsite Monday, the day the levee breached. Too little help does not equal no help."
Sitting around on-site and failing to distribute aid while claiming to be doing so to the public, AND blocking private aid from entering the disaster area -- the obstructionism that FEMA is being charged with -- is even worse than doing nothing.
Such sophistry in argument is beyond even Clinton's "depends on what 'sex' means". And, while highly profitable for attorneys, is ill suited for the higher standard, the whole truth, which prosecutors and judges are expected to meet. Admittedly, Republicans dislike nominees with a tendency toward probity.
Frankly, I don't know whether the charges are credible or just "heat of the moment" venting. On the main, I think the degree of federal aid for Katrina's aftermath has been better than expectable. Though maybe my expectations woulda been higher had someone other than Dubya been in charge I don't think they would have.
posted
It's also true that *many* major cities in the US were built on unstable land, in the middle of swamps. It's because River Deltas are good for trade.
Chicago's crisis that led to modern sewage treatment, is somewhat similar to what New Orleans faces today. They actually built on *top* of sinking Chicago buildings several times when the seconds story would become the first story and the first story would become the basment. New York has crappy land. D.C. also. Skyscrapers *have* to go down to bedrock. That's what saves them. But a lot of the other cities got shored up while labor was cheaper, and the resources of the rich were perhaps more plentiful than today. Higher tolls in human lives, but the tycoons were good for massive construction/infrastructure projects, that don't happen often in the private sector today.
Also the New Orleans situation is worse than the others, because the Missisippi is the biggest river, and the sedimentation was even more rapid of a cycle than elsewhere. It's sinking faster as a result. The long term solutions are to figure out how to do underground or offshore sediment deposition, or to put the entire French Quarter on a platform that goes down to bedrock. Putting soil on top of what is already there isn't going to solve the problem. Levees aren't going to do it either in the long term, because they will have to get higher and higher if the soil level keeps dropping.
quote:Sitting around on-site and failing to distribute aid while claiming to be doing so to the public, AND blocking private aid from entering the disaster area -- the obstructionism that FEMA is being charged with -- is even worse than doing nothing.
quote:HUME: Standing by, ready. Why didn’t FEMA send the Red Cross into New Orleans when we had all of those people there on that bridge overpass and elsewhere?
GARRETT: At the Superdome (search), at the convention center...
HUME: Lack of water, right. Why not?
GARRETT: First of all, no jurisdiction. FEMA works with the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other organizations, but it has no direct control to order them to go one place or the other.
Secondarily, the Red Cross was ready. I just got off the phone with one of their officials. They had a vanguard, Brit, of trucks with water, food, hygiene equipment, all sorts of things ready to go, where? To the Superdome and the convention center.
Why weren’t they there? The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security told them they could not go.
HUME: Now, this is the Louisiana — this isn’t the Louisiana branch of the federal Homeland Security? This is...
GARRETT: The state’s own agency devoted to the state’s homeland security. They told them, "You cannot go there."
Why? The Red Cross tells me that state agency in Louisiana said, "Look, we do not want to create a magnet for more to come to the Superdome or the convention center. We want to get them out."
So at the same time local officials were screaming, "Where is the food? Where is the water?" The Red Cross was standing by ready. The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security said, "You can’t go."
When did you live in New Orleans? There are several dates that would highlight changes in attitude regarding the levees. The first is 1995, when the problem was first identified. The second was 1998, when hurricane Georges came through. I can't find a date, but I think I recall someone here saying that they saw a TV segment (probably the same one I saw) in 2001, showing how New Orleans could be destroyed if a big hurricane hit. More recently, FEMA cited this scenario as one of the 3 most likely catastrophes to hit the U.S.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Such sophistry in argument is beyond even Clinton's "depends on what 'sex' means". And, while highly profitable for attorneys, is ill suited for the higher standard, justice, which prosecutors and judges are expected to meet. Admittedly, Republicans dislike those with a tendency toward probity.
Further, the difference between "sending" help and not sending help is critical for the purpose the distinction was being offered - showing that Bush was not punishing NOLA with his response. Unless you think Bush sent the FEMA to NOLA but told them not to do anything useful, what's important is whether the people were sent.
(And yes, Glenn, Ii know you say those two parts of your post weren't related. I'm speaking to the purpose of the post based on my understanding of your intent when I made it. And responding to the normal ill-thought slander of aspectre.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At what point do you want FEMA to directly go against elected authority in our own country? That's what it really comes down to. Should they in this extreme case? Maybe.
I don't blame them for sitting on the outskirts then. I might now, because I still don't know who is in charge and that is a travesty. BUT This is because legally FEMA *has* to work through the state government. Blanco asked for help but didn't truly give them the necessary authority they asked for. Also why they didn't go in sooner, they didn't actually have the authority to do what was needed on a large scale.
And given the dire state of things, I don't think it would actually be unreasonable for her to request Congress for martial law either. If she had, even if Congress had refused, it would have shown more initiative and leadership than has happened thus far.
posted
The first major push to improve the levees came in 1965, after Hurrican Betsy hit.
The next major event was 1986, when Congress asked the Corps to build levees around the southern half of the city.
In 1995, the southern protection zone was expanded to its current size, with about 65 miles of levees.
Sciam published an article in 2001 detailing exactly the scenario we're currently in the middle of.
There's an excellent article here from Civil Engineering Magazine that covers much of what I just listed, and more.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The RedCross (and Wal*Mart/etc) is complaining that its truckloads of water/etc to the Superdome were stopped by FEMA/etc. Whether FEMA/etc had the legal right to do so is a separate matter, as is whether the RedCross (etc) should have known that the order was illegal and ignored it. People tend to follow the instructions of the folks with the guns, even during holdups.
Like I said, I don't know whether the charges are credible, or just the media echoing statements from some unauthoritative individuals attached to those private organizations.
posted
And for Bush to ask for Martial Law in the state of Louisiana(invocation of Posse Comitatus) so he *does* have direct authority, would be a slap in the face to governors everywhere, and *wouldn't* get through congress.
I personally think the situation is such a mess, even now, that it could be morally justified.
posted
It appears from the timelines, that the stoppages by FEMA of those supplies, were because they were following the direct instructions of the Louisiana department of Homeland Security. If they had let them through, they would have defied the state government. Once again, morally, should they have defied the state government? Perhaps. Legally, though they probably couldn't.
In pragmatic hindsight, the FEMA director could have guessed his career was screwed either way, since a natural disaster happened on his watch. He could have told them to do what was necessary, forget the state government, and he'd take the fall. It would have been a calculated gamble. But if it had worked, the ends justifying the means, might have saved his reputation in the long run.
posted
"And given the dire state of things, I don't think it would actually be unreasonable for her to request Congress for martial law either. If she had, even if Congress had refused, it would have shown more initiative and leadership than has happened thus far."
One of the accusations agains Blanco is that she didn't ask for help early enough. She did, on Friday the 26th. I linked her letter above.
But the federal response to her letter asked for complete control of the response agencies, including the national guard. She balked, because she thought they were telling her they wanted to declare martial law, which was precisely what she didn't want to have.
This was all before the storm hit. After the storm during reports of looting and so forth a call for martial law may have seemed appropriate, but:
1 It would have seemed like a reversal on her part.
2 Martial law is generally punitive. Punishing people for being victims of a storm just doesn't make sense. I suspect that was her reason for not wanting it in the first place.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
What I get from it, is that Martial law gets in trouble during occupation when it has to start dealing with court tribunals and the like. In this case, there would be a lot less of that, since I don't think it would be a long term supplantation of local government.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"(And yes, Glenn, Ii know you say those two parts of your post weren't related. I'm speaking to the purpose of the post based on my understanding of your intent when I made it. And responding to the normal ill-thought slander of aspectre.) "
We've certainly been through this before. It takes awhile to get to the meaning of what each of us are saying, and we tend to see each other as opponents.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I disagree with 2)in this day and age. Martial law to me is about imposing order under extreme circumstances."
Which is why it would have made more sense after the storm, when looting was an issue, rather than before the storm when she was just asking for help.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The RedCross (and Wal*Mart/etc) is complaining that its truckloads of water/etc to the Superdome were stopped by FEMA/etc. Whether FEMA/etc had the legal right to do so is a separate matter, as is whether the RedCross (etc) should have known that the order was illegal and ignored it. People tend to follow the instructions of the folks with the guns, even during holdups.
The truck was stopped by a state agency.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I've twice said before, I don't know whether the charges are credible. And I don't know whether Garrett's statement is addressing the same incidents.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poland Springs, from my neck of the woods (at least for now ) tries to send trucks with free water, in their trucks and with the gas they would pay for, but they were told not to send it.
It was in the local news here a few day ago. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But furious state and local officials insisted that the real problem was that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which Mr. Chertoff's department oversees, failed to deliver urgently needed help and, through incomprehensible red tape, even thwarted others' efforts to help.
"We wanted soldiers, helicopters, food and water," said Denise Bottcher, press secretary for Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana. "They wanted to negotiate an organizational chart."
Mayor C. Ray Nagin of New Orleans expressed similar frustrations. "We're still fighting over authority," he told reporters on Saturday. "A bunch of people are the boss. The state and federal government are doing a two-step dance."
Amusingly, three LA Homeland Security officials are under indictment for conspiracy to obstruct an audit, in which (irony) $30 million was misappropriated.
quote: We were briefing them way before landfall," Mayfield said. "It's not like this was a surprise. ... I keep looking back to see if there was anything else we could have done, and I just don't know what it would be," he said.
Chertoff said Saturday that government officials had not expected the damaging combination of a powerful hurricane and levee breaches that flooded New Orleans.
quote: Efforts by Chertoff and other Administration spinmeisters to pin the blame on the delayed response on State and local authorities does not hold water. Although the NRP recognizes that State and local authorities have a responsibility to ask for help, the NRP correctly provides a provision to take proactive steps to deal with a threat. On page 43 of the NRP the section is titled, "Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events" (which I have copied and pasted below:
quote:The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.
posted
Steve pointed out to me that if Chertoff actually defied the Louisiana homeland security department, he wouldn't just have a ruined career... he'd likely end up in Ft. Leavenworth for life for insurrection. In what is already a gray moral area, he probably made the sane decision.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get that. I thought the whole purpose of having a homeland security department as to cut down on the interdepartmental boundaries and red tape so things could get done? I thought 'Homeland Security Department' was like the FBI--federal by definition with state branches that answered to the federal office.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (LHLS & EP); formally the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness (LOEP), was created by the Civil Act of 1950 and is under the Louisiana Military Department. In 1976 LHLS & EP via the Louisiana government reorganization, was moved to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). In 1990 LHLS & EP was transferred again to the Military Department. In 2003 the Agency name was changed to the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, reflecting the additional responsibilities to the State and her citizens.
Since LHLS & EP was placed under the Military Department in 1990, the Agency has managed over 16 Federal Disaster Declarations and has coordinated several hundred State Disaster Declarations authorized under the Governor's signature. Over the years, the mission has evolved to include the spectrum of natural, man-made disasters and as of 2003; the duties and responsibilities for supporting Louisiana's Homeland Security needs.
posted
This morning I read an interesting reprint of an article from a Texas newspaper about the huge hurricane of Galveston in 1900 (sorry I can't link it here - the paper doesn't have an online version).
While facing many of the same issues and problems as New Orleans is today -- it also mentions it being very hard to find people willing to help load up the estimated 10,000 bodies (onto carts and horses) so they finally loaded them all on barges and set them out to sea to dispose of.
It also talks about people looting the bodies of those who died. They were cutting off the swollen fingers of the dead people to steal their rings, and stripping the bodies. Most looters were shot and killed on site, no questions asked.
posted
I talked to Steve last night about what he would do if he controlled the world, to save New Orleans.
He mentioned Boston as an example. Apparently most of the city is actually on fill dirt that wasn't there naturally. His grand proposal was that they dredge a *huge* deep water harbor through all of the sediment layers(which will actually help even more with the shipping) and use that dirt to fill in the lowest areas. You'd still have some sinkage/compaction issues but if you could brace the dirt, at the point of contact in the deepwater harbor it would help.
I've been wondering what Happy Camper has been up to as he works for the Army Corps of Civil engineers (and is a geotechnical engineer). It hasn't been made clear to me how much manpower the Corps has redistributed because of the crisis, but it isn't just New Orleans that needs them either in the disaster area.
posted
I like that idea, but I just don't think it's practical. I don't think you'd get enough fill no matter how deep you dredged. There's simply too much land too low below sea level. I haven't done any volume calcs to see how much fill you'd need, but that's my gut feeling.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. Back Bay in Boston was, indeed, a bay. It took them several decades to be sure, though that was in the 1940's or something.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
de Spang, I think Steve (who is a civil engineer himself) was saying to take the dredge down to bedrock. They *have* to anchor large buildings on bedrock, most of the time. It appears bedrock is about 70 feet under the actual city of New Orleans.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't think they would have.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) tries to send trucks with free water, in their trucks and with the gas they would pay for, but they were told not to send it. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
