Attn: Republicans

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as I stated in my posts below, there is some dancing around because it's a Republican State that voted heavily for Bush -

it's obvious there are glaring failures, but to point them out is to point out the failures of the Republican administrations in those states, so they can't really go fingerpointing without taking a chance and disrupting their hold on those states in the next election -

let's not forget, this is a group for whom party loyalty trumps all, even over doing what's best for the country.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

....Ye of little faith.....Rest assured that the GOP 'spinmeisters' are working overtime and will find someone outside their party to scapegoat.

[/ QUOTE ]

....geezez, I should have read the whole string before I responded to the above post.

It is now clear to me the Broken Glass Can has the right answer for his cronies......

It's the BUSES fault! Everybody....let's hang those gol-durned BUSES...(hey, they ain't one of US!)

BGC should freshen up his resume and go see dublya for a job.

[pankwindu]

Hate to chime in here with another actual fact, but an even better article is the Department of Homeland Security's own Planning Scenario #10 .

They knew precisely what could happen.

[BCPVP]

Did they anticipate over two-thirds of the local police force up and quitting?

[pankwindu]

No, I imagine they didn't specifically anticipate the shameful desertion of local police.

There have doubtless been mistakes and incompetence at all levels. For one, the governor of LA isn't looking particularly stellar.

But the members of the Bush administration are the only ones exhibiting a complete indifference and lack of urgency, and they are the ones spinning non-stop ludicrous excuses.

Bush said no one could have anticipated the breeched levees, and Chertoff has repeatedly insisted they could not have anticipated the "two disasters" - hurricane plus breeched levees. Both assertions are essentially lies, as that exact scenario is right there in black and white in the numerous links others and I have provided.

But really, the lack of urgency is why the federal mistakes are getting the most heat.

Bush was on working vacation all August. His involvement pre-hurricane was to issue the disaster declarations and push for evacuation. Good so far.

But then he brushed his hands of it.

I recall reading the National Weather Service bulletins on Sunday night with outright dread - there was language in there like "devastating damage expected" and "human suffering incredible by modern standards". I watched in horror as the tragedy unfolded all day Monday and Tuesday.

But no one in the Bush administration shared my concern. No one cared to even monitor the situation. Bush continued his vacation and public appearances Monday and Tuesday. Condoleezza Rice was on vacation in New York, attending a Broadway play Wednesday and shopping on Fifth Avenue Thursday. Cheney was on vacation in Wyoming through Friday.

Just a little "compassionate conservatism" was what we wanted. Not a big game of pass the buck while thousands of American citizens dehydrated to death and rotted in the New Orleans heat.

And everybody can hand-wave all they want about "gee, the locals didn't ask for help soon enough" or whatever other ridiculous excuse. That does nothing to refute the argument that the Bush administration just didn't care. You may feel the same way, and think it's ok to not care, but I'm just saying, that's where the outrage is coming from.

[BCPVP]

Perhaps you can elaborate further on what Bush could have/should have done. There's been a lot of complaining that Bush hasn't done enough/anything. I'd like to hear some of the complainers explain what should have been done. Keep in mind the context of what was going on (city flooded, police MIA, etc).

[pankwindu]

Certainly. For the most part, he should have simply favored urgent action over inaction. Here is an Editorial that sums it up rather succinctly, but I will elaborate further. I should note I am politically independent; none of this is based on ideology, just good old civic duty. (I actually voted for Bush in 2000. Kerry in 2004.)

Specifically, he should have been monitoring the progress of the storm the entire time. I'm not talking "glued to the TV" here, just have some idea of what's going on. When it was clear Sunday night that it would be a catastrophic disaster affecting thousands of lives and a significant amount of national infrastructure, he should have canceled his remaining vacation plans and flown straight to Washington, immediately calling in all top-level officials from their respective vacations and coordinating a response effort.

As soon as it was safe to do so (probably Tuesday-ish, or even late Monday-ish), he should have flown to the disaster areas to survey the damage, bringing Chertoff and Brown with him. Upon witnessing the devastation, he should have immediately called in every available resource, start getting rescue teams in, start getting troops in, start getting food and water airlifted in, etc. Or, if you prefer, he should have been riding Chertoff and Brown hard to get these things going. Of course, by this time he should have departed the disaster area to clear out the security detail and allow rescue teams to operate. Back at the White House, he should basically be "on call" from this point forward, facilitating the mobilization of resources where Chertoff/Brown lacked authority, coordinating the foreign aid offers (or, more appropriately, riding Rice hard to do so), etc.

Screw all the crap about needing permission from the local/state governments. A proactive, on-the-scene Commander-in-Chief in a national emergency situation could slice right through all that red tape without a second thought.

He should also have addressed the public as if he gave a flying rat's behind about human lives. I'm not sure if you saw any of his addresses live during the day, or just sound bites later on. As it happens, I saw them live. Every time, he devoted the first third or so to the oil, gas, and economic impact. The remainder was devoted to helping the people, rebuilding what was damaged, etc. But there was hardly ever any hint of personal sympathy toward the actual victims. Never anything like "we and all of America grieve with the families and friends of those who perished in this tragedy, and our hearts and support will be with those displaced from their homes for as long as they need". Just practicalities like "it's gonna be hard work" and "help is on the way". There was one totally unnecessary staged briefing on Friday where Bush basically looked bored and disinterested for ten minutes while they ran down the damage and rescue situation. He made exactly two comments: a question about the cell towers and a comment about the oil pipeline capacity. Not a peep about human lives. (The video is in the cnn.com video section titled FEMA Briefs Bush.)

Yes, the economic impact is tremendously important and should be worked on simultaneously, but the window for saving American lives is days, if not hours, and that takes priority.

Some may argue he doesn't have to care, he doesn't have to go out of his way to do all this, he doesn't have to get personally involved, he can do what he wants, he's the boss. This couldn't be more wrong and belies the principles of a representative democracy. He is not King Bush, or Emperor Bush, or Dictator Bush, or Pope Bush, or whatever. The President of the United States does not rule us, he represents us. We put him into office as a public servant. He works for us; we pay his salary. He represents the interests of every American citizen, whether they voted for him or not, whether they are rich or poor. This is the implicit contract he accepted when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Not doing everything in his power to get assistance in there immediately, not even caring by all outward appearances, is dereliction of duty, plain and simple. It calls into question his ability to serve any of our interests in times of national distress. The spin and excuses ever since are just more salt in the wound.

Incidentally, such urgent action on the part of the President is not without precedent. Just six months ago, President Bush interrupted a vacation, returning to the White House at 1 AM to sign into a law a bill designed to save the life of a single American citizen, named Terry Schiavo.

[pankwindu]

To follow up taking context into consideration, just having the foresight to recognize the severity of the situation (like anyone in America watching TV on Sunday was) and being there Monday or Tuesday to put the wheels in motion is the main thing, everything else will flow from that.

If it's too flooded to land, do a chopper fly-over.

Recognizing that it's too flooded and roads/infrastructure are damaged, authorize air drops of food and water at the Superdome. Certainly you can get something there earlier than Friday, and certainly you could drop in waterproof containers. Crates of sealed water bottles would be waterproof on their own. I think I remember the water level only got up to 5 feet around the Superdome; having them fish waterlogged supplies out of that is far better than letting them thirst/starve for 4 days.

Seeing the 80-90% flooding, basically just mobilize everything you've got and get them on the way. Even without specifically predicting the police situation, still recognize there are an estimates of potentially tens (hundreds?) of thousands of survivors, and whatever local police force you have will not be enough anyway.

Knowing that there are 20-30 thousand in the Superdome, if you're not going to bother dropping food/water, get the damn evacuation choppers in there sooner than Friday!

Don't tell me it would take too long to mobilize any of this equipment, they could have been on alert since Saturday/Sunday and there in a heartbeat.

Granted, it's easy for me to say "just throw everything at it" after the fact, but like I said, it basically comes down to just being on top of the situation and ready to do anything necessary in the interests of American citizens. Get there on Monday/Tuesday and do something, as opposed to staying on vacation Monday/Tuesday and doing nothing.

Again, the fact that these actions will be necessary, and that local resources will not be able to handle such a scenario on their own, is already well laid out in DHS's own disaster planning scenarios. There is simply no excuse for inaction.

Maybe in reality you get there and underestimate the severity, and don't bring in enough troops, and still get bit by the police MIA thing. At least you're taking responsibility and trying to save lives. Yes, you would have gotten criticism even if this happened, but it wouldn't be nearly as strident as it is now. You gain the respect of your citizens (indeed, you fulfill your duty to them) by embracing the situation and standing up and fighting for them, not sitting back and whining about how you couldn't anticipate anything and it's not your fault.

[BCPVP]

Glad you posted a thought out reply. Just a couple of questions/comments:

[ QUOTE ]
When it was clear Sunday night that it would be a catastrophic disaster affecting thousands of lives and a significant amount of national infrastructure, he should have canceled his remaining vacation plans and flown straight to Washington, immediately calling in all top-level officials from their respective vacations and coordinating a response effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does this need to be done in Washington?

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as it was safe to do so (probably Tuesday-ish, or even late Monday-ish), he should have flown to the disaster areas to survey the damage, bringing Chertoff and Brown with him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many argue now that Bush visited too early. I would be inclined to agree. It was not a secure area and what initial relief efforts that were occuring would have been really affected by the President arriving. Unless Bush took the entire Secret Service agency with him, he'd be fairly exposed in a chaotic situation where his presence will disrupt more than help. I would agree that Brown and possibly Chertoff should have been at or near the scene early on.

[ QUOTE ]
Upon witnessing the devastation, he should have immediately called in every available resource, start getting rescue teams in, start getting troops in, start getting food and water airlifted in, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except for the timing, this is exactly what was done and doesn't really needed to be ordered by the President. The local, state, and federal agencies in charge of this type of thing should not need urging by the President to do their job.

[ QUOTE ]
Back at the White House, he should basically be "on call" from this point forward

[/ QUOTE ]
What does this mean? He did fullfill a vital role in quickly signing the aid package that was sent through Congress. That is exactly what his role in this should be this early on.

[ QUOTE ]
facilitating the mobilization of resources where Chertoff/Brown lacked authority

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this was the case. Once the feds are involved, they shouldn't need the Prez's o.k. on much of anything.

[ QUOTE ]
coordinating the foreign aid offers (or, more appropriately, riding Rice hard to do so), etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm inclined to agree, though I think some time was needed to see what could be provided that wasn't being taken care of (i.e. it doesn't make sense to have countries sending a particular item if that item isn't needed and the only way to know whether it is or not is to get a clear assessment of what's happening).

[ QUOTE ]
Screw all the crap about needing permission from the local/state governments. A proactive, on-the-scene Commander-in-Chief in a national emergency situation could slice right through all that red tape without a second thought.

[/ QUOTE ]
Careful. You're advocating that the highest level of the federal government ignore the laws of the land, the laws he's sworn to uphold.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you saw any of his addresses live during the day, or just sound bites later on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not. Press confrences don't interest me much, and I prefer my news from the web.

[ QUOTE ]
But there was hardly ever any hint of personal sympathy toward the actual victims. Never anything like "we and all of America grieve with the families and friends of those who perished in this tragedy, and our hearts and support will be with those displaced from their homes for as long as they need".

[/ QUOTE ]
What good does publicly expressing such sentiment do for those affected by the hurricane? You can't believe that he doesn't feel such sentiment, can you? I don't think there's anyone (short of people like Hitler) that can hear such news and not feel bad.

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, such urgent action on the part of the President is not without precedent. Just six months ago, President Bush interrupted a vacation, returning to the White House at 1 AM to sign into a law a bill designed to save the life of a single American citizen, named Terry Schiavo.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is one of his constitutional roles, though. Signing bills passed by Congress. Micromanaging hurricane disasters is not the role of the Commander in Chief. There are various levels of government dedicated to this role and the Prez should let them do their job or replace them if they can't.

You may or may not be aware of this but the majority of the country (based on a poll by ABC) believes Bush is not to blame for the trouble the gov't has had by a margin of 55%.
link

[pankwindu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When it was clear Sunday night that it would be a catastrophic disaster affecting thousands of lives and a significant amount of national infrastructure, he should have canceled his remaining vacation plans and flown straight to Washington, immediately calling in all top-level officials from their respective vacations and coordinating a response effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does this need to be done in Washington?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since that's where all the officials will be rallying to. And to sign bills.

[ QUOTE ]
Many argue now that Bush visited too early. I would be inclined to agree. It was not a secure area and what initial relief efforts that were occuring would have been really affected by the President arriving. Unless Bush took the entire Secret Service agency with him, he'd be fairly exposed in a chaotic situation where his presence will disrupt more than help. I would agree that Brown and possibly Chertoff should have been at or near the scene early on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, once it got to be Friday it would have been better off for him not to have visited at all, at least until rescue operations were substantially complete. I still think the President is ok to sneak in there right at the beginning, even if only for a quick flyover. (I think I read somewhere that Bush Sr. was on the scene of Andrew within a few hours, but I could be imagining things.) I would be willing to concede this point if Brown and/or Chertoff had been on the scene and visibly in charge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Upon witnessing the devastation, he should have immediately called in every available resource, start getting rescue teams in, start getting troops in, start getting food and water airlifted in, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except for the timing, this is exactly what was done and doesn't really needed to be ordered by the President. The local, state, and federal agencies in charge of this type of thing should not need urging by the President to do their job.

[/ QUOTE ]

The timing is the exact thing I am upset with, as it likely resulted in hundreds/thousands of unnecessary deaths. I also agree they shouldn't need urging, but it was clear very early on that things were not happening quickly enough and the situation was getting rapidly out of control.

Note that we are talking about the DHS created by Bush, the FEMA gutted by Bush, and the two buddies that he put in charge. It has become obvious now that at least Brown was woefully underqualified for the job. Since the guys he put into office weren't getting control of the situation, he should most certainly should be be taking charge himself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back at the White House, he should basically be "on call" from this point forward

[/ QUOTE ]
What does this mean? He did fullfill a vital role in quickly signing the aid package that was sent through Congress. That is exactly what his role in this should be this early on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was just continuing my narrative, looks like it converged with reality here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Screw all the crap about needing permission from the local/state governments. A proactive, on-the-scene Commander-in-Chief in a national emergency situation could slice right through all that red tape without a second thought.

[/ QUOTE ]
Careful. You're advocating that the highest level of the federal government ignore the laws of the land, the laws he's sworn to uphold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not intend to suggest law-breaking. It's quite clear from numerous sources that in a major catastrophe, with disaster declarations already issued, the federal government does not legally have to wait around for local permission to do anything. Even if they did, someone proactive and on-the-scene would be right there on Tuesday to look to the right and say "Governor Blanco, looks like you need the troops". "Yep". "Ok, my aides will draw up the paperwork while I make the calls." And you'd have things rolling in minutes instead of days.

[ QUOTE ]
What good does publicly expressing such sentiment do for those affected by the hurricane? You can't believe that he doesn't feel such sentiment, can you? I don't think there's anyone (short of people like Hitler) that can hear such news and not feel bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, it is not relevant to the issue in question.

As far as feeling sympathy, it can't just be a binary no (Hitler) or yes (everyone else). In terms of a continuum, though, it does indeed seem that he has less sympathy than most would, and not enough for the job of President.

[ QUOTE ]
Micromanaging hurricane disasters is not the role of the Commander in Chief. There are various levels of government dedicated to this role and the Prez should let them do their job or replace them if they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least monitoring, though. A natural disaster is an exceptional event putting thousands of citizens' lives in danger. I simply cannot imagine the President not doing everything to keep abreast of the situation.

Shouldn't he at least get status reports, Monday evening, Tuesday morning, etc.? I can't imagine receiving a status report describing the course of action as basically inaction, and not having a serious problem with that and not doing some serious ass-chewing.

"Replace them if they can't" is something you can do at leisure in the USDA and the like, but when lives hang in the balance and saving them is a matter of hours, then the oversight has to be a bit more real-time.

Overall, I get your point, but quite disagree. I think you are being way too cavalier about the "could have been quicker", "except for the timing", etc. We're talking tens of thousands of people holed up in the dome, and thousands more on rooftops throughout the city, many elderly, many ill, with 90 degree heat and 90% humidity, and no food/water/medicine for four days. Every hour could mean dozens of lives, every day hundreds or thousands. The hands-off approach is fine (indeed, preferable) for routine government tasks or for the USDA/etc., but not in the midst of such a disastrous event. Any President is by default ultimately responsible for every death that occurs on his watch, and if President Bush truly had an appropriate level of empathy for his fellow citizens he should have involved himself urgently and personally.

[ QUOTE ]
You may or may not be aware of this but the majority of the country (based on a poll by ABC) believes Bush is not to blame for the trouble the gov't has had by a margin of 55%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have about as much use for polls as you have for press conferences. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[guller]

[ QUOTE ]
Recognizing that it's too flooded and roads/infrastructure are damaged, authorize air drops of food and water at the Superdome. Certainly you can get something there earlier than Friday, and certainly you could drop in waterproof containers. Crates of sealed water bottles would be waterproof on their own. I think I remember the water level only got up to 5 feet around the Superdome; having them fish waterlogged supplies out of that is far better than letting them thirst/starve for 4 days.

Seeing the 80-90% flooding, basically just mobilize everything you've got and get them on the way. Even without specifically predicting the police situation, still recognize there are an estimates of potentially tens (hundreds?) of thousands of survivors, and whatever local police force you have will not be enough anyway.

Knowing that there are 20-30 thousand in the Superdome, if you're not going to bother dropping food/water, get the damn evacuation choppers in there sooner than Friday!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it takes a little longer than you think to mobilize this amount supplies for air drops. Dropping in a partial shipment of food and water would probably make the situation worse (rioting, fighting, etc.) I think the all or nothing approach using vehicles that could access the area was the only option here.