The President's War On Hurricanes

**drmomentum**[$] · #1 09-02-2005, 01:50 PM

Apparently, money was diverted away from the war on hurricanes in New Orleans, even though it was one of the top disasters predicted by FEMA.

It's an unfortunate truth that, no doubt makes it harder for the president to provide credible leadership in this time of crisis.

How do you console a nation when you're partly responsible for the lack of preparation, and then you lie and say no one could have forseen it?

It's hard work. But kudos to the president because he can't control the weather and he's doing what he can now.

If you like fiddling.

-JP

erik_kosberg · #2 09-02-2005, 02:19 PM

Hey, at least he's working hard on photo ops.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #3 09-02-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

The administration is facing intense criticism for not using the materials and resources necessary to address the crises in New Orleans and elsewhere. To address these concerns, the president had a photo-op this morning in an airplane hangar in which rescue workers and helicopters served as a backdrop instead of … I don't know … working in some kind of rescue capacity.

Which is exactly why I said in some other thread that, like the WTC, his visiting NO will only hamper relief efforts and create some great pictures for the next election cycle.

realtraveller · #4 09-02-2005, 02:33 PM

Regarding the underlying cause of all this, that is, the failure of the levees.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011540.php

The decision to build the levees to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, not a Cat 4 or 5 was made decades ago on a cost-benefit analysis.

**theworm**[$] · #5 09-02-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

realtraveller said

The decision to build the levees to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, not a Cat 4 or 5 was made decades ago on a cost-benefit analysis.

All the more reason why there should have been more efforts BEFORE the storm to get people away from the coast! This is a major failing of BOTH federal and local government.

frazzledspice · #6 09-02-2005, 03:32 PM

The police should have been posted at interstate entrances with busloads of people, and refused to allow cars to leave unless they were full. The government could have made arrangements with schools and community centers 40 or 50 miles away in any direction to be set up as shelters.

People who had support systems to stay with and a vehicle to leave with could have taken an extra passenger or two and dropped them off at shelters that were far away enough to give them safety.

realtraveller · #7 09-02-2005, 07:47 PM

Go back to a CNN report dated 8-28, Sunday...on their website under Weather.

It was Bush who called Blanco and urged her to order a mandatory evacuation. The initiative did not come from Blanco or the mayor but from the president. Then the report has Nagin, the mayor, saying that the storm surge would "likely topple the levee" but no arrangements were made for moving people without cars out of town.

**AuntieEmma**[$] · #8 09-02-2005, 08:05 PM

This has been brought up in other threads, but wouldn't you think that Homeland Security would have plans for evacuating all the major cities already prepared and sitting in their files, ready to be pulled up at a moment's notice? If so, what happened? If not, why in the world not?

An 80% evacuation rate is actually pretty good -- I think I read somewhere that it was the highest ever for New Orleans. But it could have been a lot higher, with a decent evacution plan. They didn't seem to follow any particular plan at all, beyond changing the direction of the inbound lanes on the highway. Opening the Astrodome seemed to be an afterthought.

realtraveller · #9 09-02-2005, 08:41 PM

Here's an interesting pre-hurricane news report.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpa...3007249320.xml

Midway through the article is this eye-opening statement.

Mayor Nagin was having legal staff look into whether he could order a mandatory evacuation "a step he's hesitated to do because of potential liability" of the city for closing hotels and other businesses.

While other surrounding parishes issued mandatory or voluntary evacuations mid-day Saturday, at 5 pm. Saturday, New Orleans was only under voluntary evacuation.

I wonder if the mayor is reassessing his city's liability now.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #10 09-02-2005, 08:45 PM

Ouch.

**theworm**[$] · #11 09-02-2005, 08:52 PM

What does a mandatory evacuation mean? People can be removed by force if necessary?

realtraveller · #12 09-03-2005, 12:58 AM

Quote:

theworm said

What does a mandatory evacuation mean? People can be removed by force if necessary?

All the flood relief after the storm isn't going to do anything for all those corpses that are going to be found..in the attics, in the streets, under the rubble.

Any kind of mandatory evacuation is preferable to that.

*emeleel* · #13 09-03-2005, 01:10 AM

You'd think "mandatory" would mean by any means necessary, wouldn't you? Betcha it will after this. And if anyone wants to scream about civil rights, they can hand 'em one of the coffee table books that's sure to get published about Katrina.

erik_kosberg · #14 09-03-2005, 02:10 AM

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis...8-bd483b818c91

Quote:

Leadership: "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." - George W. Bush, 5 days into this.

Somewhat tangentially, has anybody heard a peep out of Dick Cheney?

erik_kosberg · #15 09-03-2005, 04:08 AM

Mayor to feds: 'Get off your asses'

**pippadaisy**[$] · #16 09-03-2005, 07:14 AM

Quote:

erik_kosberg said

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis...8-bd483b818c91

Somewhat tangentially, has anybody heard a peep out of Dick Cheney?

Wait. Trent Lott lost his house? I'm feeling better already.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #17 09-03-2005, 07:26 AM

The problem with mandatory evacuations is the power it gives the town/county/state/feds/whoever-it-is-you-expect-to-make-the-decision-and-enforce-the-decision, and the lack of definite parameters and 100%-predictable situations. Let's say for the sake of argument that mandatory evacuations means the National Guard or whoever comes to your house and forces people to leave at gunpoint - sort of a domestic replay of Gaza from a couple weeks ago. The storm misses the people's houses and they come back to find their homes looted. Not only do you have their valid civil rights lawsuits to deal with (it certainly smacks of the WWII Japanese "temporary" internment camps), but the suits for property damage. Then there's the situations where the military or whoever are busy mandatorily evacuating the people in Town A, only to have the storm veer and hit Town B, where the people had a hard time evacuating because they were poor or had no cars or there were no buses... The wrongful death suits that would come out of Town B relatives since no one was there helping *their* relatives out...

Of course I find it ironic that I, one of those "the government should help people" liberal social workers, is defending a position that the government should butt out of people's affairs, but someone's got to.

**theworm**[$] · #18 09-03-2005, 09:35 AM

Quote:

realtraveller said

All the flood relief after the storm isn't going to do anything for all those corpses that are going to be found..in the attics, in the streets, under the rubble.

Any kind of mandatory evacuation is preferable to that.

I was legitimately asking the question?
Does mandatory mean that if you don't leave they can force you to leave?
We have had mandatory evacuations down here during Florida, but they don't force you out.
The situation in NO was much more dire?
Is that what we're talking about - forcing people out if they don't leave?
I'm not being snarky or passing judgement? I really want to know what it entails.

*emeleel* · #19 09-03-2005, 09:41 AM

From what I've seen, "mandatory" means that you are *supposed* to leave, but they don't force you out. It's "madatory" the same way a lot of laws are. And I've yet to see any state have evacuations of people who don't have access to transportation, IIRC.

*emeleel* · #20 09-03-2005, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Of course I find it ironic that I, one of those "the government should help people" liberal social workers, is defending a position that the government should butt out of people's affairs, but someone's got to.

Ah, I guess it's all about balance, because I'm usually a "we don't need more government telling us what to do" kind of person, but here I am advocating forced evacuations in situations like this.

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #21 09-03-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

emeleel said

From what I've seen, "mandatory" means that you are *supposed* to leave, but they don't force you out. It's "madatory" the same way a lot of laws are. And I've yet to see any state have evacuations of people who don't have access to transportation, IIRC.

So it's likely that many of the people who stayed in NO would still have stayed in NO

erik_kosberg · #22 09-03-2005, 12:22 PM

http://business.bostonherald.com/bus...ticleid=100857

Quote:

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.

Priceless.