News-Record.com

Yo Johnson,

Well you will not return my emails so I guess I will up the ante and let everybody see our intellectual exchanges...yet maybe I will be disappointed as I see your hits are at a minimum.

You are so right on the piece today about the SUVs but you should have mentioned all those jerks that put OBX OBX OBX on the front tags and in the back windows of those tanks. I want an OBX plate on the front of my hearse when I go so I will look cool on my final trip!!!!

Give Sabo my best...I wish she were single!!

Your buddy,
Jack

P.S. Answer my email

I, for one, am SICK AND TIRED of people criticizing President Bush and other government people about the fact that people suffered, and in some cases died, because of the government’s slow response to the hurricane tragedy. The worst are those who have played the race card. Is it true that the response would have been much faster if those suffering were rich and white? Of course! No reasonable person could dispute that. But – was this racism? NO. Lots of white folks have suffered because of the cruelly slow response too. President Bush did not think it was a serious situation because it was POOR people who were in trouble. Race had nothing to do with it. If these people wanted to get help in an emergency, they should have donated lots of money to the party in power. THAT’S what matters. Obviously.

Anyway – how was the president to know that the problem was so bad? All week long, the head of FEMA was declaring the situation under control – even when almost everyone else in the country was watching TV and seeing clear evidence of devastation, death, and suffering. Well – we all know that the president doesn’t watch TV news. He’s said that, and is proud of it. He gets his information from his friends. So of course he was ignorant of what was going on. Admittedly, he did get phone calls from Louisiana telling him how terrible the situation was, and how desperate the need was for federal support. But why should he believe the Mayor of New Orleans when his FEMA head said it was all OK. And why should he believe the scenes on TV – especially scenes on biased networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and the other non-fair-and-balanced-like-Fox networks?

There are also cynics who have unflatteringly compared the government’s slow response to the Katrina debacle with the quick response of the President and the Republican congress when the issue was preventing the natural death of Terri Shaivo. Well, of course! Acting quickly in the Terri Shaivo situation would not cost much money and was predicted to pay big political dividends. Don’t these critics understand anything about the current administration at all?

Cynics have also pointed out that there have been numerous warnings by scientists and others about the vulnerability of New Orleans and about the need for the levees to be better maintained and improved. But President Bush wisely never paid attention to these kinds of cassandra reports – reports which, if attended to, would have required spending money that could much better be used to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent of the families in the country. Indeed, money for maintenance of the levees was cut back by the federal government. What do people think the government should have done? Should it have spent money on something like levees instead of spending money on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska –a patently absurd bridge project put into the budget by Alaska’s influential republican senator? WHAT DO THESE CRITICS WANT? Compassionate responsive competent government? We have lots of colors for levels of terror alert. Isn’t that enough?

I have spent my day reading the blogs and news reports about this, Allen, and I have posted twice myself. I cannot begin to quell my anger over the mounting evidence of incompetence we are seeing at all levels.

The question is, is Bush responsible? Some will say "withhold judgement" or "there you go, bashing Bush again for your own narrow pleasure", but it's clear to me that what we have here is a unique example of an American president whose incompetency has been exposed at its most naked level and the people's vulnerability to that incompetency is at its most raw.

Why is he responsible? EVEN IF, he hadn't been on the longest vacation in history, EVEN IF Cheney hadn't been on vacation, EVEN IF Rice hadn't been on vacation, EVEN IF the feds had been a little more on the ball, the FEMA and Department of Homeland Security response was unacceptable. The whole country knew that it was unacceptable last Thursday and HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Poor leadership has left us all vulnerable. We are not safe with this president. Think about it right now. What if Osama bin Laden attacked today? Do you feel safe?

We deserve better.

If any of you had any idea the enormity of the task at hand, and the impossibility of having resources on hand at the site within minutes of the damage, you wouldn't be asking these questions.
President Bush is not responsible for local tasks in every city in this country. He is not the one knocking on doors telling people to leave when a hurricane approaches. To blame him for something that happened in one city is ludicrous, ridiculous, and sad. The liberals never miss a chance to misconstrue any tragedy to try and destroy our President. The more dead bodies, the happier you Dems and liberals are, right? You dishonor everyone that died in this tragedy.
Michael, there is nothing, not one single thing, that President Bush can't do at his farm in Crawford that he can do at the White House. They do have telephone service in Texas, ya know? The White House is wherever the President is, he has full communications, etc. How could you not realize this? President Bush has done as much or more while on "vacation" than he would have done in Washington, D.C.

The Department of Homeland Security, a Federal agency, is responsible for coordinating relief efforts in this kind of situation. The failings of this agency during this crisis are obvious, and the President has acknowledged them.

There is much work to be done to help those in need, and plenty of time to assign blame, and plenty of blame to go around.

But to argue that the Feds don't bear a large share of responsibility for the inadequate response is to ignore reality.

Four years after 9/11, Homeland Security is not near what it should be.

A damning judgment on Bush? Perhaps not. But surely a problem for which he is ultimately answerable -- and one all Americans deserve to see fixed.

"The more dead bodies, the happier you Dems and liberals are, right? You dishonor everyone that died in this tragedy."

JayCee, your grip on reality is slipping. It's very sad to watch. I hope you have cats to keep you company.

However, on this we agree:

"President Bush has done as much or more while on "vacation" than he would have done in Washington, D.C."

...everything but his job.

impeach, you obviously know little about the President or what he does. Come back when you get a clue and we can continue this discussion.
Mr. Cone, the federal government is indeed coordinating this effort as we speak. Do you honestly think that 50,000 people can be evacuated over one single highway in a few minutes? You say the failings are obvious, I believe the outstanding job they've done is to be applauded. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it the correct one. Should Homeland Security really be the ones knocking on doors telling people to leave the area? That's not their job. HS is not an all emcompassing agency to handle every incident that happens across the entire U.S.
You didn't answer my question about the gas distribution problem. Please elaborate.

JayCee, you say of the federal response to disaster that "the outstanding job they've done is to be applauded."

That's a lonely position to stake out, one unshared even by many highly partisan supporters of the Adminstration (see the Washington Times editorial quoted in Allen's post) or, for that matter, President Bush, who has said the response was not adequate.

News flash: Reality exists outside of partisan perception and spin. Relief efforts at the fed level were grossly inadequate, with disastrous results and scary implications for homeland security.

What is your question about gas? I saw your comment in another thread saying there is no gas shortage, just a distribution problem. To me, a distribution problem that results in shortages can be properly defined as a shortage.

As for your comment that "dems and libs" are happy to see dead bodies, I can't imagine what it must be like to live with such loathing and distrust of a large percentage of my neighbors. It must be very sad for you.

In reverse order, 50% is not a "large majority" of my neighbors. You guys lost, get over it. You are the minority. I look upon them with pity, not loathing and distrust. Sadly, they let anger and hate fuel their glee over anything they think they can twist to destroy the current administration.
There is no shortage of gas. You're playing with semantics, a la Slick Willy Clinton. Plenty of gas, just problems in getting it from point A to us here at Point B, hence the increase in prices. No shortage at all.
Your "opinion" that the fed effort was grossly inadequate is just that. Having been involved in mass casualty situation, and having served in the military and public service, I understand the logistics involved. Given the circumstances, the response was stellar. Just because you think there should have been a million hot meals served at the Superdome, or that someone should have snapped their fingers and *poof* moved 50,000 people in the wink of an eye is ridiculous. You live in a fantasy world not unlike a TV program, where everything is neatly wrapped up in an hour including commercials. That ain't the real world, bucko. You have no idea the logistics involved in an operation of this size.
When you say I occupy a lonley position, you're obviously not talking to the same people I am. Just because the liberal news and those you choose to selectively quote are trying to attack President Bush for everything from causing the hurricane to turn in the sky to failing to save their welfare-funded Escalade doesn't mean that it's accurate and correct. It's a lot easier to hear someone on TV and adopt their point of view than find out the facts yourself. Like I said, I've been involved in many operations like this (but not on this scale). Go listen to tape from yesterday when Gen. Honore was interviewed and hear his informed response to the questions you have only liberal answers for. You may have to hunt for it, though, the media didn't play much of it because it didn't fit with their preconceived plan of attack against the administration.

Got my clue, so I'm back!

JayCee, my friend.

You just called Ed "bucko", said there was no gas shortage, and made reference to a "welfare-funded Escalade".

We believe you about the mass casualty situations. Just give the cats to the Humane Society, okay? They'll be safer there. Someone will be by to pick you up veeeery soon. Just climb onto your roof and wait, and before you know it, *poof*!

So...if a resource or commodity exists in ample quantity somewhere, any area where delivery problems cause scarcity cannot be said to suffer a "shortage" of that resource or commodity...because there's plenty of it somewhere else. JayCee, you are plainly a master of both logistics and the English language.

"Welfare-funded Escalade?" Lovely.

Ed, you used the term "shortage" as in there was a shortage of the substance, not a shortage in your own gas tank.
There is no shortage of gasoline. Period. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's hear it.

JayCee, you brought up the shortage issue in response to Allen's column about the gas crunch that followed the hurricane. You said there is no shortage of gas, just a delivery problem. I merely pointed out the logical fallacy of your statement. I don't know what the gas supply is in this region, and ventured no guess; but if supplies are pinched because of delivery problems, well, the region has a shortage.

Now, would you like to elaborate on that welfare-Escalade remark? Because I'd guess that some readers are thinking that it was a particularly mean-spirited racist crack, and I'm sure you didn't mean it that way...did you?

Here's how others see us in reaction to the disaster. The heading of the editorial speaks volumes considering what I have been reading on this and other blogs. This is from The Australian.

Editorial: Sanity submerged

September 05, 2005

FULLY a week after Hurricane Katrina ripped through Louisiana, initially seeming to spare New Orleans the worst of its wrath, the full horror of the storm's aftermath has dawned on the US and the world. This was a slow-burn catastrophe, and even as those who remained in New Orleans, despite an evacuation order, were counting themselves lucky, floodwaters were pouring through the levees that protect the city on all sides. In the days since, as one of America's great historical cities has turned into a lake, we have witnessed lawlessness and destitution on a scale previously unseen in the developed world. The death toll may be unknown until the broken levees are repaired and the city is pumped dry, which could take several months. The current best hope seems to be that it will remain in the thousands, rather than the tens of thousands.

Many of the criticisms of the relief effort following the hurricane appear, on a rough first accounting, justified. Apart from those without the resources to leave, most of the 100,000 people who remained in New Orleans did so of their own free will; but that does not mean they should have been allowed to fester for up to a week, without food or sufficient water, in a football stadium, before buses arrived to rescue them from the submerged city. Even more unforgivable was the failure to evacuate those in the city's hospitals, who had no way of saving themselves. And the arrival of national guardsmen, who are similar to our own army reservists, was far too tardy, allowing a major US city to slide into near anarchy and greatly increasing the suffering of those trapped in it. But as legitimate as these criticisms are, it must be kept in mind that Katrina packed a double-whammy for the gulf states, flattening many areas with its winds before opening the floodgates of the Mississippi River and Lake Ponchartrain around New Orleans. State and federal authorities were still desperately trying to cope with the first dire emergency as the second began to unfold. And let's cut the authorities some slack as they attempt to deal with the largest migration of population in the US since the Civil War.

Almost as distressing as the scenes from New Orleans have been the attempts by some on the Left to exploit them in the culture wars. Those who parade themselves as compassionate souls exhibit a curious heartlessness in their rush to use a natural and humanitarian disaster as a pretext for bashing the US and President George W. Bush. According to an editorial in The Sunday Age, the frightening reality revealed by Hurricane Katrina "is that America has been humiliated by its inability to prevent, or then deal effectively with, a natural disaster in its own backyard; and, worse and more important in the long term, that the world's richest nation has been exposed, in a most brutal way, as a society still divided by race and possessing an underclass". How can any country be "humiliated" by its failure to prevent a hurricane? If the spurious answer is climate change, does anybody seriously believe that if Mr Bush had signed the Kyoto treaty upon assuming office in 2001, Katrina would not have happened?

As for the suggestion the disaster has revealed faultlines of race and class in the US we didn't know were there: first, we did know they were there; and second, they are not so deep or intractable as to prevent the US being a magnet for immigrants of all races and classes. The fact most of the refugees we see on television are black has a lot to do with the fact that most of New Orleans's inhabitants are black. Those who are cynically suggesting race might be a factor in the delayed relief effort would instantly cry foul if their opponents replied that race might also be a factor in the looting and violence. And the notion that the shortage of immediate help on the ground was "all about Iraq" is beneath serious consideration. We know the same claims would not have been forthcoming if Katrina had happened on the watch of former president Bill Clinton, who also committed US troops to conflicts overseas. Such ridiculous claims only deepen the discredit of those who make them and deflect attention from the genuine mistakes of the past week, and the practical lessons they hold

Allen (and a couple of others posting above) you are complete and utter fools. I'll make this as simple as possible:

First, Bush called for a mandatory evacuation BEFORE the storm. Personally URGED the governor to ask people evacuate.

http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=144249

Second, the New Orleans disaster plan for hurricanes specifically calls for evacation by buses.

Louisiana disaster plan, pg 13, para 5 , dated 01/00

'The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating'...

Third, there are nearly 200 UNUSED buses in this photo. Who knows how many more there were that went unused. Why did the MAYOR not use them?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

Fourth, despite a plan that says EVACUATE, the mayor and other officials warned people weeks ago that if a hurricane WAS to head their way, they needed to make their own plans to evacuate (this was several weeks ago.) Why people didn't do EVEN that, which was against even the previous policy, is still beyond me.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3kt.htm

Fifth, every idiot on Earth (Allen, you included) will say "but the poor don't have cars." Ok, even if you take that as the means for evacuation (despite the flooded buses), how is Bush responsible for people not owning cars? Is owning a car now a birthright?

Allen, I am sure you are on vacation today. But, I expect a response.

Your initial diatribe was totally irresponsible.

You are correct, Mr. Wilson. We've learned today that President Bush had to personally call the Mayor of N.O. and beg him to start the evacuation. But some here apparently think Bush engineered the whole hurricane thing to kill black people!

Mr Cone:The fallacy is in your thinking.
There was plenty of gas in the Gulf, but the distribution was interrupted. No shortage, just a time lag getting it from there to the rest of the U.S.
How on earth can my remark about a car be racist?
You liberals MUST read race into everything you see. I said nothing about race, inferred nothing about race, but you SAW something racial there, huh?
It's apparent the racist thoughts are coming from YOU, my friend, not me. You see certain things and then you think in terms of white people and black people, don't you? That is prejudice, racist thinking. You should be ashamed.

"Is Bush responsible?"

Think about it this way: When the head of FEMA warned the White house that three things might happen, 1. A terrorist attack in NYC 2. A catastropic hurricane that would hit the Gulf Coast damaging our fuel supply and 3. another catastropic earthquake in San Francisco-- what did Bush do? He fired the guy.

Bush has appointed the last two FEMA heads and neither of them had as much as one day's experience in diaster management. Not one day!

And people still want to know if Bush is responsible? Bush is the most unresponsible President leading the most unresponsible government this nation has ever known.

As proof I offer you this: In 1927 the Mississippi River flooded 60 miles wide from Illinois to New Orleans, over one million people were left homeless and relief got to the survivors faster than it did this time and as it was 1927 they were unable to use airplanes and helicopters. And less than 300 people died.

If I lived in San Francisco I'd be moving about now.

JayCee, Do you think anyone is fooled by your dodging and weaving? If you weren't playing to a racist stereotype by talking about a welfare-purchased Cadillac in the context of an overwhelmingly black group...what did you mean?

Jim Wilson, is everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, or is this a special case? Isn't the relevant issue less whether people should have evacuated, but what happened when some did not? And isn't this especially relevant when the agency in question is responsible for terrorism response, too, and a terror attack (say, a bomb in a levee) would not come with a warning period?

Billy... Funny thing this Internet.

I can research the key differences between 1927 and today and reply back to your falacy with real facts! AMAZING!

First, the flood of 1927 was brewing for months. Everyone knew it would likely happen. Preparation in the form of BOATS was well underway!

Second, the flooding happened SLOWLY and did not overtake an entire metro (in 2005 terms) city in one day!

Third, because this flooding happened right on an open river, boats were used to move many people who were SMART enough to have actually walked to higher ground! (Speaking of which, why didn't the people in the flooded part of New Orleans walk to the other 20 percent of the city that wasn't flooded? It's not that far of a walk -- I've been to flooded Jazz Fest and the unflooded French Quarter and know the distances!)

Fourth, this flood did not happen after a CATATROPHIC hurricane! It happened slowly (again, I emphasize that) and with rescuers able to move around easily AFTER the storm.

Fifth, 10,000 people WERE stranded! So, I'm not sure how the 1927 flood is even viewed as a success.... but, if you say it is, it was only because of what I outlined ABOVE!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flood/timeline/timeline2.html

In all, your comparision doesn't hold up!

First, not everyone is an idiot. Just people who clearly distort facts to blame people for political gain.

And, actually, no the issue that you claim is different because a bombed levee would not cause the massive, widespread (dozens of miles wide) disruption that a hurricane would. It would leave infrastructure everywhere else in tact!

It would result in a swift, massive response that would have resulted in a different type of evacuation and immediate aid. (Remember, New Orleans wasn't the center or even to the right of this hurricane.)

Also, if a bomb went off, the mayor wouldn't run around for two days bad mouthing the president because the mayor himself botched things. He *could* be a real, upstanding public official and actually appeal for help and do productive things instead of going on various talk shows to cover his rear.

The term "bomb" would set off all kinds of federal alarms that would ensure that response was entirely different. (I'm talking FEDERAL troops activated IMMEDIATELY.)

A hurricane with some days notice, on the other hand, places MUCH of the responsibility on the local, regional and state officials -- as it should. WHICH gets me back to THE point that IS relevant that they FAILED to do the necessary PREPARATION!!!

One more thing: if we want to make hurricane preparation, evacuation and aftermath response ALL a federal responsbility (until now very, very largely a local and state one) go right ahead. And, when the feds fail on that, please PLEASE blame them. Until then, this is lunacy. (In fact, I can't believe I am defending the feds -- I dislike the federal government, but I can't stand seeing blame assesed unfairly.)

But, a terrorist attack is a different animal altogether that would clearly fall under federal control from the start resulting in a very, very different response. It would be a federal military operation FROM THE START and the miltary would not wait for the namby pamby mayor to ask for help (after going on several talk shows.)

An unexpected attack would bring a different response than an expected natuaral disaster that local and state officials are supposed to largely handle.... by the way, where were the thousands of LA National Guard troops the gov. of LA could have activated (and no, only a fraction of them were in Iraq or in areas damaged by Katrina, so don't pull that one.)

Mr. Cone, you're the one that read BLACK into my post, I never said it or intended it.
You made the racial stereotype here, not me. Go look in the mirror if you want to see a racist.

President Bush had to call the New Orleans Mayor on the phone and beg him to start the evacuation. It's not Bush's job to count the buses in the parking lot or tell everyone which street corner to report to. It's not his job to keep a list of every bus driver in every city or town across America. Put the blame where it belongs...the Mayor of N.O. performed incompetently and people died because of it. The blood is on his hands, I don't care who he tries to point his finger at.

I'm gonna wade into the JayCee vs. Ed fight for a minute. Here goes:

Louisiana doesn't have "welfare." Welfare reform happened a while ago for the whole country. Like North Carolina, Louisiana has a temporary cash assistance program for families with children (FITAP).

The average monthly FITAP benefit is $200, not enough to buy or even lease an Escalade. A family of 10 would receive about $500 per month, still not enough for an Escalade. Those old stereotypes about people in poverty driving Cadillacs are just so tired. Can we get off that? And I'm warning you, I'm prepared to quote about 100 verses from Scripture where God talks about how much He loves the poor, and how we should have His heart for the poor, etc. Don't make me do it! ;)

Now JayCee, you know as well as I do that if the liberal Bush-bashers aren't hating on him for the hurricane, they'll be hating on him for the high gas prices, or for Cindy Sheehan, or because they were late to work or broke a nail or had a bad night's sleep or whatever problem huge and tragic or tiny and trivial that is presenting itself to them at the moment. The Bush-haters are convinced that he is the source of all evil. You will not convince any of them any differently.

My advice is to let 'em have at it. When Hillary wins in 2008, then the conservatives will have their turn to be the haters again. As I recall, when the shoe was on the other foot, conservatives were just as convinced that her husband was the great satan and that every bad thing that happened to them personally or to our nation was directly tied to him (and her, too!). What goes around comes around. It's all ridiculous.

And so Missy stays out of it. I love you all. Liberals, conservatives and otherwise.

Peace, y'all.

Jim W, regardless of whether you think the Feds should run natural disaster relief, the fact is that FEMA under Homeland Security has explicit responsibility for doing so in circumstances like this. No question that the local authorities were inept in many ways, but it seems equally clear that help was not there from the Feds when it was needed.

Missy, while there may be "Bush haters" making political hay out of this situation, I don't think it's accurate or productive to reduce the whole conversation to that level. Unless one wants to argue that everything went just fine and the problems are invented...which seems a bit of a stretch.

JayCee, last time: what did you mean by the welfare-purchased Escalade comment? You said it, please explain it.

The feds should obviously run it.

BUT -- and here is the rub -- *hurricane* relief from the feds has always been afforded the consideration of waiting for local or state officials to call for it. And then, the feds work closely with the state and local officials.

In this case, the local and state officials were idiots and the precedent of how it worked (despite the fine work during 4 - yes FOUR -major hurricanes in 2 months in Florida last year) broke down (somewhat).

I don't care WHO does it just as long as blame is placed properly.

Plenty of blame to go around -- former Clinton advisor Brad DeLong says at his blog that the failures of NOLA gov't were "worse than FEMA." (Linked at www.edcone.com)

The article he cites shows that those submerged school buses could have made only a dent in the problem -- the number of people without transportation is staggering.

After reading this thread I have had my fill of the speculations thrown around by those in North Carolina who are getting their information third hand through inept and often slanted authorities. I have relatives in New Orleans and I have spoken to them since this "national" disaster occured. This in part is their perspective on this national disaster.

First of all, the president never "begged" the mayor of New Orleans to evacuate the city. No where in any account before the storm is there mention of this communication happening according to those in the area or state. The mayor instituted the evacuation when the storm turned toward the city. The governor in turn appeared on local television urging people to completely evacuate the city. When it was a certainty that the storm would hit, the governor made it a mandatory evacuation and begged people to leave. Not once did the president, who was on vacation, appear or speak to the people of New Orleans, Louisiana, the mayor, or the governor. The president begging for an evacuation is an outright fabrication. This according to the relatives I spoke with this past weekend.

Once the evacuation was made mandatory many did not leave because of various reasons. Perhaps they thought it wouldn't amount to much, or perhaps they couldn't afford to stay in a hotel for several days, or perhaps they had no one to stay with, or perhaps they were just too old or sick to be moved. Whatever the case, many stayed at their on peril. It happens in every hurricane. I personally witnessed this type of behavior when I helped with evacuations on our coasts. No matter how grave the situation, there are some who do not heed the warnings. It doesn't take away from the tragedy if they are lost in the storm. You cannot make people leave by force.

The aftermath is one that is an example of ineffectual leadership on behalf of our federal government. The question that popped up in my conversations with those in the area is how does one declare the disaster and ask for help when the entire infrastructure has been demolished? The people I know watched from several hundred miles away as the governor and mayor asked for assistance through the media. Also, they wondered why the president waited two days to conclude his vacation before flying over the city and waited another two days to tour Mississippi before another fly-over. What sparked their ire more than anything was the images of the president handing out water in Florida a few days after the hurricane hit his brother's state last year. No one has seen the president handing out anything to anyone in Louisiana. Is Florida more important than those living in the Mississippi delta?

The president's lead feet are not the only ones which should be scrutinized, but the incompetency of FEMA director Michael Brown has plenty to answer to for this fiasco. No food drops. People being rescued by civilians who took it upon themselves to do something. No plan to evacuate those in shelters or hospitals until this past weekend. Once a "national" disaster hits, it is the responsibility of federal government and the nation to assist those in need. Every contingency is to be questioned and examined before the crisis hits. This seems to be an example of waiting until it hits before action is taken.

While I read this thread, and especially the words those who keep defending the president, I am reminded of a picture from a history book. The picture was of Harry Truman sitting at his desk. Prominent in the foreground was a placard which read, "The buck stops here." Truman's philosophy is lost on subsequent presidents, especially the present one. Ultimately the responsibility lies with the president. To fly over the devestation of the delta and not take immediate action is criminal. Even if the governor did not ask for a declaration of national disaster, it was evident. To shift blame to those effected by the disaster because of a technicality is outright cowardice and inhumane . I hope those of you who do such a thing sleep well in you blanket of self-righteous piety. One day it could be you suffering while politicians weave their stories and blame shift.

President Bush called for evacuation:

"Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding."
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?base/news-18/1125239940201382.xml&storylist=louisiana

While politicians weave their stories........

Speaking of which, Gov. Blanco, who did little to nothing with her National Guard, has refused to put them under one command in order to prevent duplication of effort.
It seems that the state of La also has lost the first of it's kind mobile hospital, consisting of 113 beds, doctors, nurses, medicine and all the medical facilities of a regular hospital because of red tape. It seems that the governor wanted to limit what the hospital could or could not do. The hospital is part of the mobile hospitals established under Home Land Security. The good folks in another state on the coast had no problem with taking advantage of medical help. And the governor continues to complain about lack of medical. Talk about
politics!

Bottom line: We can do much better, no matter who we believe is at fault.
However, I'd certainly not blame the elderly and infirm for failing to high-tail it from the Gulf region.
Nor would I blame the poor and their children.
I still question why the bureaucracy failed so utterly in this instance.
Wherever the chips fall, we need to figure this out before the next disaster.
In light of 9/11 and the Homeland Security Department, we were supposed to be better prepared and coordinated.
Obviously we are not. That needs to be fixed.
Whether we are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, can't we at least agree that we should do better?

Correct Allen. Well said.

But, back to the flooded, unused buses real quick. 200 buses x 4 trips a day for three days. Let's say 30 people on each bus. That is the evacuation of 72,000 people.

So, that is quite a dent in a city of 500,000 -- of which about 100,000 did not evacuate. AND, even if it was HALF that -- 35,000, then that is certainly the weak and infirm and very young in the area.

AND, I STILL don't understand why ABLE BODY people who couldn't swim didn't just walk to higher ground. The hurricane had passed and it's not far to walk to the French Quarter. There was plenty of warning. I don't get it! Even in the 1927 flood that Billy points out 10,000 people walked to higher ground!

Jim, I guess that's hard to say until you're in that position. Lots of people tend to take irrational chances when confronted with a need to leave their homes. We've seen that time and again with hurricanes.

The most frustrating part of this whole disaster was the failure to drop food and water for those people stranded at the convention center. The blame for this lies with FEMA, and ultimately with the Bush Administration under which FEMA operates. However, that is different than blaming Bush personally as it seems so many have.

People died when they could have lived if we had simply dropped food and water. There is no excuse for that happening, and I for one have been beside myself with anger over this.

Still, the overall blame lies everywhere and nowhere.

You could blame the National Hurricane Center for relying too much on models and not enough on experience. Accu-weather and other private weather services were at least 24 hours ahead of NHS/TPC in predicting the monster that Katrina would become.

You could blame the mayor of New Orleans for not getting those public buses out to poverty strickent areas.

You could blame the governor of Louisiana for not asking for federal help sooner, and not having a contingency plan.

You could blame the media for initially (and rightfully so at the time) reporting that the worst had passed on Monday afternoon.

You can blame the criminal element that terrified people and thwarted rescue efforts.

You can blame the White House for not cracking the whip on FEMA sooner after seeing live reports of people in distress all over the news.

You can blame the Congress for not providing the funds to improve the floodwalls and levees.

However, I see a larger issue. We pay taxes to prevent this sort of disaster. Our tax money is supposed to be there in an emergency like this. Part of the reason that this happened was because of the re-routing of the Mississippi over the years to benefit developers and big money special interests. This has been a bi-partisan task. Both parties have big dollar interests that get laws passed to benefit them.

I believe that this disaster will cause a sea change in American politics where incumbents of both parties will be held accountable. The American middle class truly does feel "there but for the grace of God, go I". As a conservative Republican, I have always believed in the virtue of the private sector to do the right thing. Now is that time. The millionaires and billionaires that profited from the development in the Mississippi delta need to reach deep down into those pockets and start writing checks to help those who have suffered as a result of the disaster that development has wrought. With wealth comes responsibility. After that, it is up to those affected individuals to become self-sufficient so they don't have to wait on government buses that never come.

We need to make our government at all levels more accountable to us, and not just to the person with the most money. We can argue over the causes of poverty, and I'm sure we will. But at the end of the day, nobody in New Orleans should have died solely because they were poor. Nobody should have died when helicopters could have dropped food and water. It is time for all of us to take our country back from politicians from both parties that respond only to those with fat check books.

For the private sector to work in a free economy, it must remain free but also be generous. For government to work in this democracy, it has to be accountable and that requires action from all of us.

Love and Mercy

Whether we are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, can't we at least agree that we should do better?

Beautifully stated, Allen. And I agree.

Ed: It would certainly be advantageous to have a civil and reasoned discourse about what went wrong, and why, and how we fix that, and whom do we hold accountable, and what does that mean? However, it would be good to first meet the needs of those still suffering. And it would be wonderful if we could have that discourse without it turning into the blame-throwing hate-filled political free-for-all that it's rapidly becoming. I guess I'm just tired of every discussion of substance in this country being reduced to liberal vs. conservative or Democrat vs. Republican (which is NOT always the same thing.) Even our tragedies become immediately political. It gets old. Fast.

Without mentioning political parties, any relief/evacuation/emergency situation is first the repsonsibility of the city, county (parish) and state.
The Mayor had an evacuation plan.
The Mayor did not implement the plan. (I assume he used the plan to wipe his butt after crapping himself when he realized his incompetence was going to cost hundreds of lives)
The Governor did not do things according to plan, in a reasonable time, or in a resonable matter.
Now the Mayor and the Governor want to blame the President for their problems.
The Mayor is of one party, the mayor before him was the same, as was the mayor before him. The Governor is of the same party that has run the state for decades, 40 or so years, as I recall.
The President is of the other party.
And who are they blaming?
Come on, guys.

Times-Picayune story from 2002: http://www.nola.com/hurricane/?/washingaway/

Thanks for sharing this, govtwriter. Yes, I've seen the Times-Picayune series, published three years ago, about the prospect of a cataclysmic hurricane in Louisiana. Was anyone paying attention?

KANYE WEST IS RIGHT!!!!!!!