The aftermath of this disaster was well-known

[newfant]

Stop saying the federal government didn't know what would happen if a hurricane were to hit New Orleans. It's all right here in this National Geographic article:

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

[cardcounter0]

Bush doesn't read. And his aides only read parts of the newspaper they feel is appropriate for him to hear.

But if the federal government responded to every "article" it would have to relocate Los Angeles 100 miles east asay from fault lines... make every building in N.Y. 10 stories or shorter, and move all Texas oil rigging several thousand miles off the coast.

I'm not trying to be a jerk... but this type of stuff has to be handled... or miss-handled at a local level.

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
But if the federal government responded to every "article" it would have to relocate Los Angeles 100 miles east asay from fault lines... make every building in N.Y. 10 stories or shorter, and move all Texas oil rigging several thousand miles off the coast.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that prevention of this disaster would have been difficult if not impossible. If terrorists had snuck a bomb across the U.S.-Mexican border and blown up half of Texas then we would be bitching about lack of border funding.

However, the feds had plenty of notice that this hurricane was going to hit New Orleans and they knew how many people were going to be left in New Orleans. People that would need food and water and medical care. They had plenty of time to get troops and supplies down there and they failed. That is my point.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop saying the federal government didn't know what would happen if a hurricane were to hit New Orleans. It's all right here in this National Geographic article:

[/ QUOTE ]

It was known for a long time that this could happen, including during the 90's. If this hit in '97, would it have been Clinton's fault?

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stop saying the federal government didn't know what would happen if a hurricane were to hit New Orleans. It's all right here in this National Geographic article:

[/ QUOTE ]

It was known for a long time that this could happen, including during the 90's. If this hit in '97, would it have been Clinton's fault?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Clinton's Admin responded as poorly as this then it would've certainly been Clinton's fault

[BCPVP]

Have you done any research as to the proposed solutions? They're not very comforting and would often take years to construct.

What seems more important would be the plan of what to do if such an event happened. And in this respect, all levels have done abysmally. What I take issue with is clearly partisan people using this tragedy as a launching pad for more anti-Bush criticism when it's clear that many other levels of gov't are also clearly at fault. Liberals here who care whatsoever about how their opinion is seen would do well to temper their anger at Bush and begin looking at what should be (or should have been) done at all levels. But this nitpicking Bush for every little failure of the gov't is making liberals look opportunistic and partisan, imo.

[cadillac1234]

The reason the finger is beening pointed at Bush is because his Admin completely re-vamped FEMA under The Homeland Security act at an enormous cost to the tax payers and it is worse now than it has ever been.

If you are watching the news this AM you can see waht happens when you have the components in place. The lack of action over 5 days is inexcusable. You won't see a single person on the ground disagreeing with it. Even Bush said so himself.

Do you really feel that the revamp of FEMA was money well spent after seeing this clusterf_ck?

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
What I take issue with is clearly partisan people using this tragedy as a launching pad for more anti-Bush criticism when it's clear that many other levels of gov't are also clearly at fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bush had cut his vacation short and at least given the appearance of acting with a sense of urgency then you wouldn't see as much criticism. He brought this on himself.

[BCPVP]

No doubt FEMA is partially to blame, but I seem to recall reading (sorry don't remember where. been reading a lot these last couple days) that FEMA was going to be more focused on terrorism responding and it's role in natural disasters would be mitigated to the state level and private sector. If this is the case, then it's hard to blame FEMA for everything when their role is being dramatically changed.

An interesting article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110007201) from the WSJ.

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
No doubt FEMA is partially to blame, but I seem to recall reading (sorry don't remember where. been reading a lot these last couple days) that FEMA was going to be more focused on terrorism responding and it's role in natural disasters would be mitigated to the state level and private sector. If this is the case, then it's hard to blame FEMA for everything when their role is being dramatically changed.

An interesting article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110007201) from the WSJ.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then Bush's Administration is even more at fault for not planning a Natural Disaster Scenario into this new revamp. It is completely unimaginable that they would be so godam myopic regarding this.

BTW The Bush Admin's b/w view of problems has always been my biggest criticism

How about this... I'll go have unprotected sex with a HIV positive female.

Then... when I get AIDS and I'm waiting to die... I'll expect sympathy from everyone that's been warning me for years to use a condom.

Then... my great distrust of the governement (liberal or conservative) that makes this country great will take over and I'll blame "___ insert current president 2010 here___" for my horrible condition.

How does that sound... because in 5 years when I'm dying of AIDS... it would mean a lot if the liberal or conservatives on this post helped me criticize the "___insert 2010 presdient here____"

[BCPVP]

Keep in mind that we have hindsight on our sides now. The chances of this happening were not regarded as very high. And who's to say that FEMA hasn't prepared for natural disasters? My guess is that they got caught flatfooted when the hurricane got bigger and have had to deal with feeding/watering/supplying and evac'ing a city that is mostly underwater and few places to enter/exit as well as a surrounding area that has been ravaged by the same hurricane. Let's not forget that New Orleans is not the only place to get hit. Mississippi took the brunt of the hurricane and have been similarly wiped out. So you have devastation over a large area, a loss of many necessary utilities, a huge refugee problem, and to top it all off, gas that grows more expensive by the day! Needless to say, I think FEMA's in over it's head and probably treading water as fast as it can (which isn't to say it's fast enough).

Now that I think about it, most of the media coverage has been of New Orleans, while it is the coast of Mississippi that got hit the hardest. Hell, N.O. was at least able to evac most of it's people. How do you evacuate an entire coastline in any reasonable fasion?

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
How about this... I'll go have unprotected sex with a HIV positive female.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just about to suggest that you do this.

New Orleans has been around for 100s of years. There was a potential for disaster there just like there is in many places in America. The federal government's slow response to this disaster was pathetic. That is the issue.

You know what i don't understand... why does everyone (dems and conservs) want Bush to step up to the mic the mili-second he is informed of anything.

If you remember... when Clinton was President and a plane of U.S. Citizens was shot down by Cuba... he waited three days to issue a statement (which I thought was fine).

Obviously this is much worse than 4 citizens who didn't know how to follow their flight plan en route to vacation... but it brings up a good point.

Why is it when democrats are slow to respond they are; "gathering all the facts", "trying to make informed decisions", "trying to calm the public through adequete planning".

However, when a conservative doesn't immediately jump on TV they are: "dupping the public", "calious towards the needs of the poor", and "un-willing to address public out-cry".

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The federal government's slow response to this disaster was pathetic. That is the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea. The immediate criminal lawlessness that ensued by the scum of society had nothing whatsoever to do with it. And the coast guard rescuing thousands of poeple doesn't count cause they're not really part of the federal government. And the mayor's inept evacuation didn't have anything to do with it either. Neither did the governor's failure to immediately declare martial law and seek federal troops. Yep. All Bush's fault. Oh yeah, and 3-5 days is a huge amount of time to take getting supplies in past the gang bangers cause truckloads of supplies were just sitting on the outskirts of N.O. like they are outside every major city just in case.