I share your feelings SB, believe me.

But what we must try to do is to focus on the number of people that were rescued and saved. Otherwise we'll make ourselves nuts.

All in all whe you really look at this,the progress that was made in such a short time once the military came in was fantastic. Within 1 day of them being there they rescued something like 10,000 people and were able to move all 40,000 people out of that Horror Dome. That's quite impressive when you really think about it.


Don Cardi

Too little, too late, IMHO. This is not supposed to be a country where we pluck babies from the raging water, only to have them die a few days later because there was no water for them. Water!! Go into any 7-11 and there are gallons upon gallons of it!!

I know that we need to think about those that did survive. We have to think about what they will need to rebuild their lives. And we need to get them whatever it is that they need.

But we also need to learn from this so that it never, ever happens again.

Every article I've read and every news report I've seen has been critical of the federal government to some extent.

Even President Bush himself has been critical.

The biggest defenders of the feds that I've heard have been right here.

That's an impossible question to answer.

You have to take it one situation at a time and evaluate each on its own, based on the circumstances involved.

'Nuff said.

Of course the mainstream media is going to have their day being critical of the Fed Gov't...why dare waste an opportunity for Bush-bashing.

What we have not seen is equal criticsm of the local govenment, the Mayor/Governor for not being better prepared for the flooding disaster, for sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the Feds to show up for not putting an organized plan into action. As was the case on 9/11 which was a completely UNEXPTECTED event.

That's all well & good in theory. But unfortunatly it's not how things work in the real world. The country has a Constitution, each state has its own individual Constitution and neither can be run effectively by evaluating each 'situation on its own, based on the circumstances involved'.

And even taking your well intended statement at its face value...if that is true, then the Gov. of Louisiana had been prepared enough to evaluate THIS situation on its own, based on the circumstances involved, then she would have made sure the city of NO was given particular attention with regard to the levees, and when they broke would've made sure she had sufficient communication with the city, and would've ordered in the National Guard days earlier.

Apple

Listen, this stupid bitch that wants to call herself a governer has still not relinquished control over to the federal government. What in the world is this imbecile thinking???? End of story.

The buck stops there!!!!!


Don Cardi

Whoa Whoa Whoa....relinquished control?

C'mon, doesn't the Federal government remember that certain lesson from Civics class called "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution?

You know, the Federal government always trumps a state government in matters of authority.

Then again, I'm just confused about the whole matter.

Wrong.


Don Cardi

Wrong?

You mean in a crisis-situation, like now?
Or always?

Aaaw, painful.
Where did you get this info from? And where in the world were the people with that kind of "humor" :rolleyes: ?

I've explained the governmental procedure in many posts over the last week or so. You can scroll back to find it.


As for the KATRINA naming of children, well this has been reported on several talk radio shows. Mostly being done in the extremist muslim world.


Don Cardi

That is so awful and sad. Just one more story to be added to the endless stories of heartache. And someone does have to be responsible at some point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/national/nationalspecial/07barbara.html

I posted this one in the New Orleans-thread. Didn't know it was a non-political thread. Sorry.

A stupid and insensative thing to say. Plain and simple. People need to think before they speak.

Don Cardi

I agree politics aren't important right now. The people alive have to be helped first, and installed as best as possible.

But after that, someone will have to explain very good why things didn't run like they should have. You all know who 'someone' is. I really don't want to say it's on purpose, or what else BS, but he/goverment/others made big mistakes.

And to end a quote of an important Republican. It's in my own words, but it came down to this:
"If we weren't even prepared for something we saw on coming for days, what in earth will happen when there's a nuclear attack?"

You mean SHE.


Don Cardi

Sorry, both.
I admit that I don't know how much the President was involved. But the fact that she did all kinds of things wrong, means he didn't do correct her, means he wasn't as present as he should have been about that. Which makes him 'guilty' too .

You mean SHE.[/b][/quote]"She" did, but so did "He".

Do you seek to absolve Bush of all responsibility? Even he himself says that he was "not satisfied" with the response of the federal government.

Absolutely, unquestionably, and without a doubt, New Orleans and Louisiana officials should bear the brunt of the initial responsibility and failure to act.

But I think it's fair to say that the federal government didn't exactly pick up the ball in a timely manner after the local officials dropped it.

The Bush presidency has been characterized by by what conservative NY Post columnist John Podhoretz today called

"A management style which is to vest extraordinary trust in the officials working for him - a system that only works when you have first-rate people in your emply, which Michael Brown, the astonishingly brainless moron running the Federal Emergency Management Agency, clearly is not.

For these failings, Bush has and will be held responsible. If he wishes to be given credit for his managerial presidency when it succeeds, he must take the blame when it fails."

You could also argue that FEMA never should have been folded into the Department of Homeland Security, whose main objective is counter-terrorism, not action in the event of a natural disaster.

As I understand it, FEMA's budget has been cut every year since.

Plaw, I am not trying to say that the President is not reponsible for anything that's happened here, but I would like you to explain to me WHERE and HOW he dropped the ball?

Don Cardi

Because, regardless of WHO dropped the ball initially, citizens of the USA were stranded on the interstate, or lying in urine and feces-covered floors in the Superdome or Convention Center for DAYS without food or water. Lawlessness prevailed, teenagers rampaged with assault rifles, and people had to resort to crime to keep their families from dying in front of their eyes.

I don't care if LA was supposed to sign a piece of paper or not. When the director of FEMA says in a TV interview that they were UNAWARE of the dire situation, then there's something wrong with the system. What it will take to fix it, I don't know, but I heard and saw him say it with my own eyes and ears. And when the reporter incredulously said, "Unaware? Don't you or anyone else own a TV or radio?", his response was that the agency first learned of it FACTUALLY on Friday. Sorry, that's dropping the ball from a federal standpoint.

You want the top job in the country, you want to be the most powerful man in the world, then, as Harry Truman put it, "The buck stops here!"

He personally did not drop the ball, this FEMA guy apparently did.

And as Podhoretz wrote it today's Post,

For these failings, Bush has and will be held responsible. If he wishes to be given credit for his managerial presidency when it succeeds, he must take the blame when it fails."

....the FEMA guy.

A few excerpts from the Boston Herald, Saturday, Sept.3

"The federal official in charge of the bungled New Orleans rescue was fired from his last private-sector job overseeing horse shows.

And before joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a deputy director in 2001, GOP activist Mike Brown had no significant experience that would have qualified him for the position.

The Oklahoman got the job through an old college friend who at the time was heading up FEMA."

"Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Brown spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders' and horse-show organization based in Colorado."

"Brown was forced out of the position after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures."

George W. will have lots of 'splainin' to do when this mess is over.

Fair enough. I agree with that assessment. In hindsight there is no question that it was a BIG mistake putting FEMA under The Department Of Homeland Security. And yes, Bush does share blame for his administration implementing that under his watch.


Don Cardi

And they were worried about Bernard Kerik taking the job as head of Homeland Security because he had an illegal working for him as a nanny. :rolleyes:


Don Cardi

Then again, those same taxpayers probably should've been upset that billions goes to welfare and whatnot each year. After all, they could've used better levies!

I had no problem with Kerik, except that it looked kind of stupid to have a guy in charge if homeland securty and trying to keep the illegal aliens out, who had an illegal alien working for him personally.

But I thought he would have done a good job. So would Rudy, as much as I disliked the guy as Mayor.

Mmm, yes, I agree with Rudy pretty much except for his pro-choice views. But he would've made a decent DHS secretary.

Kerik just got caught with his nanny ala Jude Law :p

Then again, those same taxpayers probably should've been upset that billions goes to welfare and whatnot each year. After all, they could've used better levies! [/b][/quote]I'd rather hand out free money to Americans rather then Iraqis. I don't know about you.

Then again, those same taxpayers probably should've been upset that billions goes to welfare and whatnot each year. After all, they could've used better levies! [/b][/quote]I'd rather hand out free money to Americans rather then Iraqis. I don't know about you. [/b][/quote]Oh, silly. It's not free.

Honest taxpayers are the ones supplanting welfare and SSI.

How about someone who was an honest taxpayer for thirty or forty years and then gets sick, can no longer work, and depends on the money he or she gets from SSI?

And yeah, as you pointed out to Patrick the money is not "free".

So perhaps he should change his statement to read "I'd rather hand out tax money to Americans rather then Iraqis. I don't know about you."

Of course, it would be a fair argument to make that since we destroyed Baghdad, we have an obligation to rebuild it. I don't suppose I would disagree with that.

BTW, to "supplant" means to replace. I think you mean "supporting".