Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

From this column:

"It is settled wisdom among journalists that the federal response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was unconscionably slow.



Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).


"Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a somewhat more strident expression of the conventional wisdom.

But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.

Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.

Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline is available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris, and apparently have little interest in finding out.

So they libel as a "national disgrace" the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.

I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New Orleans breached. In the course of that week:

More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by Coast Guard helicopters.

The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans.

Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000 refugees.

Journalists complain that it took a whole week to do this. A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Moltenthought:

"We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.

"The United States military can wipe out the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican Guard far more swiftly than they can bring 3 million Swanson dinners to an underwater city through an area the size of Great Britain which has no power, no working ports or airports, and a devastated and impassable road network.

"You cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by prepositioning assets (in the affected areas) since the assets are endangered by the very storm which destroyed the region.

"No amount of yelling, crying and mustering of moral indignation will change any of the facts above."

"You cannot just snap your fingers and make the military appear somewhere," van Steenwyk said.

Guardsmen need to receive mobilization orders; report to their armories; draw equipment; receive orders and convoy to the disaster area. Guardsmen driving down from Pennsylvania or Navy ships sailing from Norfolk can't be on the scene immediately.

Relief efforts must be planned. Other than prepositioning supplies near the area likely to be afflicted (which was done quite efficiently), this cannot be done until the hurricane has struck and a damage assessment can be made. There must be a route reconnaissance to determine if roads are open, and bridges along the way can bear the weight of heavily laden trucks.

And federal troops and Guardsmen from other states cannot be sent to a disaster area until their presence has been requested by the governors of the afflicted states."

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

How many Americans are actually qualified to evaluate the federal response to Katrina?

I could editorialize for hours about what I think, or what I read on the news the other day, but the fact is that I've never been to New Orleans... and aside from some rudimentary knowledge that I picked up in science classes, I know next-to-nothing about hurricanes.

Millions of people like me are passing their own judgment on the way this catastrophe was handled by our government -- but how many of us really have the slightest clue?

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

I never even thought of it like that. Good research.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

You should know by now that what really happened doesn't matter. What matters is what people believe about it.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]

...the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the operation or the guys on the ground itself that is criticized, it is the leadership.

After this hurricane, we needed a leader to cut corners and make things happen any way he could. People are dying lets cut through some red tape, ditch some SOPs. Leaders who could see that the local gov was not doing anything right because its capabilities were already devastated and [i[its[/i] leaders were ineffective. Instead we had one who continued his vacation with photo ops for a few more days. And leaders (Bush, Brown) who showed striking ignorance of the situation days after the fact. Many American had learned more after an hour of watching cable news.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its not the operation or the guys on the ground itself that is criticized, it is the leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aren't you able to grasp about what the article said? If the response was good which it was then there was NO leadership problem only a phantom one created by the media and liberal/Bush-bashing spin-meisters.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

Special note:

[ QUOTE ]
And federal troops and Guardsmen from other states cannot be sent to a disaster area until their presence has been requested by the governors of the afflicted states."


[/ QUOTE ]

All media reports about the response must now contain the following lie. Repeat it enough, people might believe it.
Then they can start referencing each other's articles as "proof" that it is true.

Continue to repeat the above lie until further notice. That is all.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not the operation or the guys on the ground itself that is criticized, it is the leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aren't you able to grasp about what the article said? If the response was good which it was then there was NO leadership problem only a phantom one created by the media and liberal/Bush-bashing spin-meisters.

[/ QUOTE ]

SOP is not good enough for the worst natural disaster in US history and the grimmest post-disaster situation, when hundred of lives are at stake; we must demand better from all our leadership, and not be satisfied with excuses involving procedures and red tape. Care to respond the actual meat of my previous post instead of avoiding it completely?

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

As was said, this was worse than any previous natural disaster, which is pretty obvious by now. On top of that, past failures aren't meant to pave the way for future failures.

And even if that were so, I have trouble reading sources that think Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
And even if that were so, I have trouble reading sources that think Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typo - the original artical says:

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.

[/ QUOTE ]

Original

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

If you're referring to the "federalizing" argument you and I had before, then I'll tell you that the only way I've found (so far) for the President to federalize the Nat'l Guard would be for the governor to request such a move and/or a state of martial law would have to exist. Neither of these is the case in LA, so I believe Bush cannot federalize the Guard.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of these is the case in LA, so I believe Bush cannot federalize the Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only by implementing the insurrection act – imagine the howls in liberal land if he did that!

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither of these is the case in LA, so I believe Bush cannot federalize the Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only by implementing the insurrection act – imagine the howls in liberal land if he did that!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe Bush decided against this drastic option which would enable a faster federal response and result in lives saved because he was afaid of "howls in liberal land"?

I mean just listen to yourself...

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you believe Bush decided against this drastic option which would enable a faster federal response and result in lives saved because he was afaid of "howls in liberal land"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point is.......sigh....never mind, that would be a waste of time - just keep on chanting "It's all Bush's fault".

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you believe Bush decided against this drastic option which would enable a faster federal response and result in lives saved because he was afaid of "howls in liberal land"?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what he said and you know it.

I guess this would be the section regarding sending troops/Guard:
Quelling Civil Disturbances: The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. § 331 et seq.)

* State and local governments have primary responsibility for quelling rebellions (32 C.F.R. § 215.4(a).
* The President may use the military (including the Federalized National Guard) to quell (1) civil disturbances in a State (upon the Governor's request), (2) rebellions that make it difficult to enforce Federal law, or (3) any insurrection that impedes a State's ability to protect citizens' constitutional rights and that State is unable to unwilling to protect these rights.
* Before committing U.S. troops, the President must issue a proclamation for rebellious citizens to disperse, cease, and desist.
* Some government attorneys believe that the Insurrection Act is subject to a very liberal interpretation.

I don't think Bush could even use the Insurrection Act, under these circumstances, as it's not clear to me that the tests established for invoking it would be met. But I'm not a lawyer...

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

The Op-Ed writer made some good points. Much of the federal response was great, especially from the Coast Guard. This was a massive undertaking that no other nation could have accomplished.

Much of the criticism has also been partisan anti-Bush cheap shots, but if the Bush administration was satisfied with FEMA's response Brown would still be in charge.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

STILL WRONG!

First the lie is he can't do it, then the lie is he can only do it to quell insurection.

WRONG!

Look at the SOP in case of National Disaster. When there is a National Disaster declared the President can summon the troops, no permission needed. That is why it is called a NATIONAL disaster. It has been that way every since the great San Fransisco Earthquake in, I believe, 1906.

I think you will see this ability for the "Commander in Chief" to control his forces was further strengthed in provisions of the Patriot Act, and the formation of the HomeLand Security Dept.

What is the sense of having a National centralized HomeLand Security Department if it is hamstrung by the will of 50 different State Governors.

BUT THANK YOU! You point out the fallacy of the great "President can't send troops without permission" lie by pointing out one of the many means in which he could have done it.

Funny, the President only worries about what the "liberals" will think when it agrees with something he wants to do or not do. He wasn't worried about what the "liberals" thought with any of his appointments, his tax cuts, his invasion of Iraq... But when it comes to saving American lives, better not offend the "liberals".

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

Hmmmmm... 1992 was how many years before 9/11, the formation of the HomeLand Security Dept., the spending of billions for domestic protection, the election of the President wanting to make us all safer?

I think the response to the Great Chicago Fire was really slow too. Should we hold our modern fire fighters to this same reponse time that they exhibited 100 years ago?

Gee... this response was almost as fast as a response to a smaller event when Daddy was in charge. Good job, George.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you believe Bush decided against this drastic option which would enable a faster federal response and result in lives saved because he was afaid of "howls in liberal land"?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what he said and you know it.

I guess this would be the section regarding sending troops/Guard:
Quelling Civil Disturbances: The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. § 331 et seq.)

* State and local governments have primary responsibility for quelling rebellions (32 C.F.R. § 215.4(a).
* The President may use the military (including the Federalized National Guard) to quell (1) civil disturbances in a State (upon the Governor's request), (2) rebellions that make it difficult to enforce Federal law, or (3) any insurrection that impedes a State's ability to protect citizens' constitutional rights and that State is unable to unwilling to protect these rights.
* Before committing U.S. troops, the President must issue a proclamation for rebellious citizens to disperse, cease, and desist.
* Some government attorneys believe that the Insurrection Act is subject to a very liberal interpretation.

I don't think Bush could even use the Insurrection Act, under these circumstances, as it's not clear to me that the tests established for invoking it would be met. But I'm not a lawyer...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that's a fairer argument, thank you. Don't give me whining about "liberals" like BCP did. You guys just love to pretend liberals=micheal moore, who might very well attack Bush no matter what he did. I'll try not to treat you like Sean Hannity and you try not to treat me like Micheal Moore.

As for your fair argument, intrestingly it seems to contradict what Bill O'Reilly just stated on the factor. He said that he admits Bush was at fault for not using an executive order to mobilize the guard the day the levies failed and NO went underwater. Bill is with me!

So the Governor and mayor are overwhelmed, incompetent, and have lost significant capability for action? Well, beg the governor to call for feds, use an act loosely (insurection), write an executive order, and save some lives. Save lives first, ask questions later! I PROMISE you, I would not be whining in the face of such bold leaderhip.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the SOP in case of National Disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you provide this, please? I don't feel like an easter egg hunt today.

[ QUOTE ]
When there is a National Disaster declared the President can summon the troops, no permission needed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you will see this ability for the "Commander in Chief" to control his forces was further strengthed in provisions of the Patriot Act, and the formation of the HomeLand Security Dept.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Nat'l Guard are not "his". They belong to the state.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the sense of having a National centralized HomeLand Security Department if it is hamstrung by the will of 50 different State Governors.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's way more to the DHS than just federalizing the Guard.

[ QUOTE ]
BUT THANK YOU! You point out the fallacy of the great "President can't send troops without permission" lie by pointing out one of the many means in which he could have done it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many? There are very few circumstances in which the President can do this and I've yet to see one that applies. I'd like to see you back up your claim that POTUS can do this under the circumstances.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

Liberals are always so angry, do some research before these posts please.

To all the conservatives, the liberals dont understand states rights, this is all a moot point in trying to explain it to them.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]

To all the conservatives, the liberals dont understand states rights, this is all a moot point in trying to explain it to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you've just framed the debate so accurately it amazing.

Here it is. The President Himself.... No Permission mentioned.
 

This was declared Aug. 27th, so why the delay?

The Feds had an absoulte Duty to Act, Authorization to Act and Jurisdiction to Act

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 27, 2005

Statement on Federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana
The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Claiborne, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, LaSalle, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Pointe Coupee, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. Landry, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and Winn.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding.

Representing FEMA, Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, named William Lokey as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FEMA (202) 646-4600.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not the operation or the guys on the ground itself that is criticized, it is the leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aren't you able to grasp about what the article said? If the response was good which it was then there was NO leadership problem only a phantom one created by the media and liberal/Bush-bashing spin-meisters.

[/ QUOTE ]

SOP is not good enough for the worst natural disaster in US history and the grimmest post-disaster situation, when hundred of lives are at stake; we must demand better from all our leadership, and not be satisfied with excuses involving procedures and red tape. Care to respond the actual meat of my previous post instead of avoiding it completely?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was NO meat in your Bush-bashing post prior to this one. The article showed that the response was very fast compared to other disasters and gave the analysis of an experienced military officer of the FACT that it JUST TAKES TIME to get resources in place. And as far as recognizing the incompetence of local leaders, that was done in 2-3 days, although you are right if the federal government should just assume a priori that all democrat local officials are more likely to be incompetent.

And BTW, how very funny you say "hundreds of lives at stake" now that it seems clear that the dire predictions of 10,000+ dead was just more media/liberal spin.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not the operation or the guys on the ground itself that is criticized, it is the leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aren't you able to grasp about what the article said? If the response was good which it was then there was NO leadership problem only a phantom one created by the media and liberal/Bush-bashing spin-meisters.

[/ QUOTE ]

SOP is not good enough for the worst natural disaster in US history and the grimmest post-disaster situation, when hundred of lives are at stake; we must demand better from all our leadership, and not be satisfied with excuses involving procedures and red tape. Care to respond the actual meat of my previous post instead of avoiding it completely?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was NO meat in your Bush-bashing post prior to this one. The article showed that the response was very fast compared to other disasters and gave the analysis of an experienced military officer of the FACT that it JUST TAKES TIME to get resources in place. And as far as recognizing the incompetence of local leaders, that was done in 2-3 days, although you are right if the federal government should just assume a priori that all democrat local officials are more likely to be incompetent.

And BTW, how very funny you say "hundreds of lives at stake" now that it seems clear that the dire predictions of 10,000+ dead was just more media/liberal spin.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) So you really think Bush and Brown were on top of things? No comment on their well-documented ignorant statements or Bush continuing his vacation?

2) Blamed my questions in "1)" for being bush-bashing then making a pointless jab aginst dems? Your credibility is falling.

3) Thousands without food and water in NO and the need is not dire, but merely liberal media spin? Hundreds of lives were not at stake?

Feds followed SOP while hundreds suffered, and Bush and Brown were not effective leaders. This was a unique situation where we needed leadership and could not find any, local or federal. As another poster said, the same resonse as the one to andrew is not good enough here.

Stick to reason and not rhetoric!

Re: Here it is. The President Himself.... No Permission mentioned.
 

I’ll go slow and try to use small words so you can follow…..


Let’s start with your earlier post about the insurrection act – look at the bold (really black letters) for the part you missed/didn’t understand/ignored.

Quelling Civil Disturbances: The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. § 331 et seq.)

* State and local governments have primary responsibility for quelling rebellions (32 C.F.R. § 215.4(a).

That’s the mayor and the governor

* The President may use the military (including the Federalized National Guard) to quell (1) civil disturbances in a State (upon the Governor's request),

The governor that needed an additional 24 hours to make up her mind

(2) rebellions that make it difficult to enforce Federal law

see above

, or (3) any insurrection that impedes a State's ability to protect citizens' constitutional rights and that State is unable to unwilling to protect these rights.

Both the mayor and the govenor said “all is well!”

* Before committing U.S. troops, the President must issue a proclamation for rebellious citizens to disperse, cease, and desist.

And the local authorities can object, basically vetoing the proclamation

Now, on to some other issues:

[ QUOTE ]
This was declared Aug. 27th, so why the delay?

The Feds had an absoulte Duty to Act, Authorization to Act and Jurisdiction to Act

[/ QUOTE ]

The State and city had a hurricane plan – they didn’t follow it.


Louisiana gets more Federal money for Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects than any other state, 1.5 billion dollars but most of it was diverted by state and local politicians to other pork projects instead of NO levies.
Other states and agency had been reviewing the plan since the 90’s and had questioned the workability of it. Shove em’ all in the Superdome was the best they could come up with in 10 years????

Now finally….

The thing you either don’t want to understand or can’t is that FEMA, The Red Cross, The National Guard, even the Police and Fire Departments are reactionary services. This is why they are called responders They are activated after something happens. It’s even in the NO emergency plan not the expect help from FEMA for 72 to 96 hours after (now try real hard here) the event has ended. In other words you don’t stock a bunch of relief supplies in the area where the disaster might destroy them. Ask any emergency worker Fire/Rescue/Medical. One of the first rules in emergency response is to not become a victim yourself.

In any case FEMA is primarily a financial assistance agency They aren’t the one passing out the water and blankets, they are the one who spends tax money to help disaster victims recover financially.

The local rescue personnel, the local and state agencies plus (when the governor calls them out) the national guard are the ones with the water, blankets, food etc.

Finally……..

The National Guard, The US military and FEMA were in Louisiana faster than any other major hurricane, with a greater volume of personnel and materials. In 5 Days- more than 400,000 people were rescued/relocated/evacuated; order has been restored; The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans; so far less than 700 people have been killed (who knows how many of those were killed by looters) out of a city population of 448,000.

So, they got there faster, with more support than any other time and yet you still piss and moan.

What the hell do you want?

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stick to reason and not rhetoric!

[/ QUOTE ]

I have. The federal response was indeed fast so there is no REASON to claim otherwise and to do so for political reasons is mere RHETORIC

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Feds followed SOP while hundreds suffered, and Bush and Brown were not effective leaders. This was a unique situation where we needed leadership and could not find any, local or federal.

[/ QUOTE ]
What exactly would this "leadership" have done better? Declare physics and logistics irrelevant and pull all the aid out of their hats? The argument set forth in the OP was that criticism of the government's response should be tempered by the knowledge that the Feds responded as fast as they have for previous disasters.

Now does this absolve government from the mistakes that were made? Of course not, but the left has made a career out of turning molehills into mountains with regards to President Bush.

Amazing!
 

Your entire post has nothing to do with the authority of the President to send National Guard into the State without permission from the Governor.

You do mention The Insurrection Act again, which was not needed, as the President has other authorities granted to him to send National Guard in this type of situation.

And Again --- You dispute the LIE yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
* Before committing U.S. troops, the President must issue a proclamation for rebellious citizens to disperse, cease, and desist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Daddy Bush did just that. He issued a proclamation over the Rodney King riots, and federalized the California National Guard four hours later, over the objections of local authorities, during the Rodney King riots.

So put your hands over your ears -- chant LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU - LA-LA-LA-LA-LA -- and keep beliveing that the President can't federalize troops without permission for the State.

Re: Amazing!
 

Cut to the chase

The National Guard, The US military and FEMA were in Louisiana faster than any other major hurricane, with a greater volume of personnel and materials. In 5 Days- more than 400,000 people were rescued/relocated/evacuated; order has been restored; The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans; so far less than 700 people have been killed (who knows how many of those were killed by looters) out of a city population of 448,000.

So, they got there faster, with more support than any other time and yet you still piss and moan.

What the hell do you want?

Re: Amazing!
 

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants something to blame Bush for. You know, to try to hide the corruption and utter incompetence of the previous administration probably.

Re: Amazing!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants something to blame Bush for. You know, to try to hide the corruption and utter incompetence of the previous administration probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like Bush is blaming himself:

Bush: 'I take responsibility' for U.S. failures

Re: Amazing!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants something to blame Bush for. You know, to try to hide the corruption and utter incompetence of the previous administration probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

i cant believe that this is still the generic conservative response to criticism. yes, the previous administration was sooooo corrupt that they didnt even give giant government contracts to companies the vice president used to work for...buttt....the *former* president got a blowjob, hence rendering him the most corrupt, incompetant president of all time...and i mean besides our economy doing ridiculously well and an expansion in general social welfare, he sucks because he didnt cut our taxes and then start an open-ended, war on ideologies. what a miserable failure.

rj

Re: Amazing!
 

[ QUOTE ]
yes, the previous administration was sooooo corrupt that they didnt even give giant government contracts to companies the vice president used to work for

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that Clinton gave Halliburton a no-contract bid for work in the Serbian theater, right?

Re: Amazing!
 

[ QUOTE ]
You do mention The Insurrection Act again, which was not needed, as the President has other authorities granted to him to send National Guard in this type of situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you. Prove this is so, because everything I've read so far has indicated that the President has no such power in these circumstances.

[ QUOTE ]
Daddy Bush did just that. He issued a proclamation over the Rodney King riots, and federalized the California National Guard four hours later, over the objections of local authorities, during the Rodney King riots.

[/ QUOTE ]
The mayor requested federal troops and the governor approved. They DID request this federalization, which btw occured after the CANG had more or less accomplished the task of restorign law and order. I'm not sure which "local authorities" that objected you're talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
So put your hands over your ears -- chant LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU - LA-LA-LA-LA-LA -- and keep beliveing that the President can't federalize troops without permission for the State.

[/ QUOTE ]
YOU have done nothing to support your contention that the President has such a power except point to an example that doesn't even support your conclusion.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.


[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, this quote is clearly fabricated.

Re: Amazing!
 

okay, so what makes the previous administration "corrupt and utterly incompetant" and the current administration not "corrupt and utterly incompetant"?

rj

Re: Amazing!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants something to blame Bush for. You know, to try to hide the corruption and utter incompetence of the previous administration probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

i cant believe that this is still the generic conservative response to criticism. yes, the previous administration was sooooo corrupt that they didnt even give giant government contracts to companies the vice president used to work for...buttt....the *former* president got a blowjob, hence rendering him the most corrupt, incompetant president of all time...and i mean besides our economy doing ridiculously well and an expansion in general social welfare, he sucks because he didnt cut our taxes and then start an open-ended, war on ideologies. what a miserable failure.

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

What an ignorant response.

the *former* president got a blowjob, hence rendering him the most corrupt, incompetant president of all time

I could care less about that.

I am talking about the fact that he was told about Bin Laden being a threat, yet, when given the chance to apprehend him, he was too busy at a golf tournament. Then his administration blocked the transfer of information the Army had uncovered to the FBI about Mohammed Atta it seems. At the same time, he sold advanced technology (for missles no less) to the Chinese. He was basically bought and paid for by the Chinese, exactly how many campaign donation scandals were there involving Clinton and the Chinese?

While he was doing this, he was *lying* (read: committing perjury) before a Grand Jury. This coming from a lawyer, who apparently believed the President is above the law. Note, he did get DISBARED!

Clinton had almost NOTHING to do with the expansion of the economy. In fact, Clinton probably helped bring about the burst of the economic bubble (he wasn't the cause, it was doomed to fail the way people were throwing away money). His tax hikes and spending habits virtually assured an economic slowdown. Despite this (and in part due to REPUBLICANS balancing the budget) the economy grew.

I cannot fathom how you infer that Bush has declared war on ideologies while not seeing those Clinton crusaded for. For more war information please look at Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, etc.

Now, check your facts son, Clinton gave many of the same contracts to Haliburton that Bush's administration did. Difference? Cheney didn't work for Haliburton when the contracts were awarded under Bush. Face it, Haliburton is the only company in the US that does what it does (which is a hell of a lot), there are not that many options to choose from. Funny how no one ever talks about all the government contracts Haliburton received under Clinton.

Furthermore, your assertion that Clinton expanded social welfare in this country is dead on. He sure did screw us up even more. All we need is the government doing everything for us. The racist party (Democrats) has convinced many black people that they cannot succeed without the help of government. What do you leftists think? Are blacks not smart enough, not talented enough, not motivated enough to succeed without your "help"? The Democratic party is the most racist political organization in the history of our country if only due to their hypocracy.

what a miserable failure.

Clinton sure was.

Re: Federal Response to Katrina FASTER than to Andrew, Hugo & Others
 

nice post, except jack kelly's column is full of falsehoods.

[ QUOTE ]
In a September 10 column, Toledo Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Jack Kelly put forth numerous falsehoods and dubious statements in defense of the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. Kelly's column was quickly embraced by the conservative media: On September 12, it was posted on the Drudge Report and read aloud by Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program.

Claim #1: Federal government couldn't have had "preposition[ed] assets" near New Orleans ready to immediately assist relief effort

Kelly sought to defend the federal government's much-criticized response to the hurricane by citing an anonymous "former Air Force logistics officer" who claimed on the weblog Molten Thought that "[y]ou cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by prepositioning assets (in the affected areas) since the assets are endangered by the very storm which destroyed the region." Kelly then adopted the point, declaring that "Navy ships sailing from Norfolk [Naval Shipyard in Virginia] can't be on the scene immediately."

In fact, a Navy ship -- the USS Bataan -- was "preposition[ed]" off the Louisiana coast ready to aid Katrina victims but was deprived of needed guidance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as the Chicago Tribune reported on September 4.

Moreover, the Bush administration did not send a hospital ship to New Orleans from Baltimore until four days after the levees were breached. Kelly wrote that the Army Corps of Engineers had by September 10 "begun pumping water out of New Orleans." But James Lee Witt, FEMA director in the Clinton administration, said that both efforts should have happened much sooner: "[I]n the 1990s, in planning for a New Orleans nightmare scenario, the federal government figured it would pre-deploy nearby ships with pumps to remove water from the below-sea-level city and have hospital ships nearby."

Claim #2: Federal government "pretty much met standard time lines" in initial response to Katrina; responded with "unprecedented" speed in following days

Kelly cited a whitewash of the federal government's delayed response by Florida Army National Guardsman Jason van Steenwyk, who claimed that the "federal government pretty much met its standard time lines" in responding to the crisis.

According to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) December 2004 National Response Plan (NRP), when responding to a catastrophic incident, the federal government should immediately begin emergency operations, even in the absence of a clear assessment of the situation. Because a "detailed and credible common operating picture may not be achievable for 24 to 48 hours (or longer) after the incident," the NRP's "Catastrophic Annex" states that "response activities must begin without the benefit of a detailed or complete situation and critical needs assessment."

In fact, it wasn't until August 31, two days after the hurricane struck, that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff declared Katrina an "Incident of National Significance," "triggering for the first time a coordinated federal response to states and localities overwhelmed by disaster," according to the Associated Press.

Kelly also cited Steenwyk's claim that the federal response to Katrina "during the 72-96 hour" period was "unprecedented" and "faster" than all other recent storms, including Hurricane Andrew. But, as CJR Daily has noted, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr., whose house was damaged by Andrew, had a different recollection in a September 9 Herald op-ed:

The day after I crawled from the wreckage of my home in 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was there with water. Shortly thereafter came low-interest loans and other forms of help.

By contrast, a woman who saw me conducting interviews in Bogalusa, La., seven days after Katrina struck marched up and demanded to know if I was, finally, the man from FEMA because her house was split in two and she and her husband and children and grandchildren were sleeping on the porch.

Claim #3: "The levee broke Tuesday morning"

Kelly falsely claimed that flooding first began in New Orleans on August 30, writing that "[t]he levee broke Tuesday morning." While it is unclear exactly which levee Kelly was referring to, "major levee breaks" first occurred on "the morning of Monday, Aug. 29," as The Wall Street Journal noted (subscription required) on September 12. The New Orleans office of the National Weather Service issued a flash flood warning at 8:14 a.m. Monday, saying 'a levee breach occurred along the industrial canal at Tennessee Street,'" according to the Journal.

As Media Matters for America has documented, a weblog of the New Orleans Times-Picayune -- dated August 29, 2 p.m. CT -- noted that "City Hall confirmed a breach of the levee along the 17th Street Canal at Bellaire Drive, allowing water to spill into Lakeview." This initial report on the Times-Picayune weblog was followed throughout the afternoon and evening of August 29 by reports of other levee breaks and massive flooding.



[/ QUOTE ]

Mr. Kelly debunked further at http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120009

Re: Amazing!
 

[ QUOTE ]
okay, so what makes the previous administration "corrupt and utterly incompetant" and the current administration not "corrupt and utterly incompetant"?

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said the previous administration was corrupt and incompetent. I was merely pointing out the fact that the previous administration used no-bid contracts to Halliburton as well. Knowing that, I am sure you can see the flaw in using this is as some sort of point against the Bush administration.