NationStates Jolt Archive

My husband as you all know him as Zeppistan, wrote this in his journal today. I felt that enough time has passed, as did he to post such a thread.

Original Post By Zeppistan

I've been avoiding talking about this subject so far. Didn't want to be accused of political opportunism. But as the facts keep spilling out, about the deep cuts to the levee programs over the past few years, the cuts to FEMA and it's re tasking away from it's mandate of disaster management leaving the country without a dedicated federal agency to step in to such an event, and the obvious lack of available manpower and equipment which is all in the middle east these days, I find myself growing angry.

And when I hear GW make the assinine comment yesterday that nobody could have foreseen the levees failing when the Department of Homeland security listed it as a huge threat, when you consider all of the articles on the subject, and the very news reports that considered what might be about to happen as Katrina bore down on the city, anger gives way to rage. I have to wonder what, with the mandated security whenever he is about, happened when he circled the city in his shiny jet? I'd put good money on it that standard clear airspace requirements for Airforce One were enforced which would have meant a suspension of the airborne search and rescue for that period.

Clearly the government cannot stop the weather. But I have to ask the question: where were the buses to get the poor people out BEFORE the storm? Now they have to try and find their way in and out across shattered highways and through flooded areas. How many lives could have been saved had the evacuation been managed (and funded) instead of people crossing their fingers, hoping for the best, and leaving so many people in harms way?

And what will the cost to the taxpayer be on this? Had those few hundred million been left in the budget over the past three years to perform the needed upkeep on the levees, how many billions would have been saved today? 10? 20? The funding cuts this past year that were deemed unaffordable represented about 7 hours worth of operations in Iraq. Seven hours. If just one of those levees had held, or a few pumps kept running, how much of a difference would that money have made?


The latest Republican mantra has been towards the creation of an "ownership society". Near as I can tell, in practice it means that if you don't own shit, you aren't deemed a worthwhile member of society. That ownership = membership. That survival in this ownership society is to be reduced to the ability to own your own way to save yourself.


I'm not sure that represents the America that they put out on their sales brochure.....

But for those who are their on the ground helping, who have taken this event to be a call to help others in dire circumstances, you all have my utmost respect and admiration. May you all be safe and well, and may you be granted the opportunity and resource needed to make a profound difference in the lives of others. Because that IS what a caring society should be about.

Wow, this coming from Zeppistan/Stephistan? Who would have believed :rolleyes:

Just to answer a few of your questions...
The MANDATORY evacuation order was issued ahead of time... there was some transportation available, not enough, but some... but some people chose to continue to party up until the last minute. Some people felt it wouldn't be that bad.

And as to the "few hundred million" number you mentioned.. try $10 billion. That is what the ACoE said it would take.

Turn that rage into useful energy and maybe so something to help.

Food for thought:

When the levee breaks

At a press conference a few months after 9/11, Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted" that someone would try to use "a hijacked airplane as a missile." It turns out that she was wrong. Someone could have predicted it, and someone did: Long before 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration had considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon, and the agency specifically warned airports of the possibility in 2001.

Which brings us, somehow, to George W. Bush's appearance this morning on "Good Morning America." There, the president said: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded."

We're not sure which "anybody" the president has in mind -- and we suppose maybe the president was being extraordinarily careful to distinguish between a "breach" of the levees as opposed to a more general overrunning of them -- but perhaps the White House might want to consult a few clips we found in about five minutes worth of Googling today:

The Associated Press, Aug. 31, 2005: "Even as Katrina approached, experts like Louisiana State University's Ivor van Heerden warned of a pending 'incredible environmental disaster.' He predicted the levees would be overwhelmed and much of the city would be turned into a giant, stagnant pool contaminated with debris, sewage and other hazardous materials."

The Houston Chronicle, Aug, 31, 2005: "Local officials said that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection -- including fortifying homes, building up levees and repairing barrier islands -- the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."

The Associated Press, Aug. 29, 2005: "Experts have warned for years that the levees and pumps that usually keep New Orleans dry have no chance against a direct hit by a Category 5 storm."

From Salon.com


It has also been reported that the Louisiana National Guard are slow in responding because all of their high-water vehicles are currently deployed in Iraq. I'm sure those come in handy in a desert nation.

The fact is that Katrina was a horrible event, but the actions, or lack thereof, of the current government have made it far worse.

Click here to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina (http://www.redcross.org/)

No, you misunderstood, Zep was talking about all the money cut by the Bush administration in the last few years for the infrastructure for New Orleans.

Most of the people who did not leave (while agreed there were exceptions) was because they were poor and didn't have the money to, nor a car and no buses were provided by the government to get them out BEFORE the storm. The very study that Bush himself had the department of Homeland security conduct on "what were the biggest threats to America" included a natural disaster to New Orleans. There have been plans on the table for a number of years that would of fixed the problem, it would of cost 14 billion dollars. Equal to the amount being spent in two weeks in Iraq, but they just ignored it and ignored it and then finally cut even more spending to support the infrastructure of the levees just last year, saying it was unaffordable for the federal government. The facts are the facts! Don't take my word for it, go look it up!

No, you misunderstood, Zep was talking about all the money cut by the Bush administration in the last few years for the infrastructure for New Orleans.

It wasn't just Bush. Clinton did it too! Nice job of ignoring that fact. And no, enough time hasn't changed. Why don't you take your political opportunities and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I'm disappointed in you Stephistan.

Regardless of my political stance, I do not think anyone in the administration is going to be made a hero out of this.

It wasn't just Bush. Clinton did it too! Nice job of ignoring that fact. And no, enough time hasn't changed. Why don't you take your political opportunities and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I'm disappointed in you Stephistan.

Insulting me won't change the truth, and hiding your head in the sand won't either.

Your disappointment and or approval of me is of little importance to me.

Regardless of my political stance, I do not think anyone in the administration is going to be made a hero out of this.

You actually might be surprised. If Bush does this right, he'll be hailed as the person that saved New Orleans. That is if he does it right. Also, if he does the right thing by meeting refugees and does what he promises he will do, his approval numbers will go up. In fact, I'm expecting a small rise in his approval numbers. He's doing all he can to help the people down there but I think he needs to declare martial law down there to restore order.

Beautifully articulated. I'd only add that it's the same style of pro-big-business anti-society policies that ensured there'd be a large underclass in New Orleans still there when the levies broke.

You actually might be surprised. If Bush does this right

Too late, he's already done it wrong.

Insulting me won't change the truth, and hiding your head in the sand won't either.

Your disappointment and or approval of me is of little importance to me.

Stephy,

You haven't told the whole truth here at all. Both George H. W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, as well as George W. Bush have cut that budget. Don't try to blame all of this on Bush. Its not all his fault and to attribute it as entirely his fault is insane.

Try actually reading facts before spouting your political bullshit.

Uhm, it was under President Clinton that the improved levies were built. It was under President Bush that funding for levy maintenance and pumps was slashed.

President Bush also attempted to have the increases in spending for coastal protection in the energy bill removed. Fortunately Congress over ruled him, unfortunately the money still won't be available until 2008.

Let's put blame where blame belongs.

You actually might be surprised. If Bush does this right, he'll be hailed as the person that saved New Orleans. That is if he does it right. Also, if he does the right thing by meeting refugees and does what he promises he will do, his approval numbers will go up. In fact, I'm expecting a small rise in his approval numbers. He's doing all he can to help the people down there but I think he needs to declare martial law down there to restore order.

Somehow I don't think it will turn out like that. Bush' numbers were a record low to begin with, and people seem more cynical of his administration than ever before.

If you want facts, get them from the people on the ground in New Orleans, like maybe the Mayor?

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said yesterday that state and federal officials need to stop having "goddamn press conferences" and get relief efforts moving. "We have an incredible crisis here and [the president's] flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice," Nagin said in a radio interview last night. "Excuse my French, everybody in America, but I am pissed."

Stephy,

You haven't told the whole truth here at all. Both George H. W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, as well as George W. Bush have cut that budget. Don't try to blame all of this on Bush. Its not all his fault and to attribute it as entirely his fault is insane.

Try actually reading facts before spouting your political bullshit.

All I can say is once again your blind support of the Bush administration is showing and you couldn't be more wrong on this one Corneliu!

If you want facts, get them from the people on the ground in New Orleans, like maybe the Mayor?

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said yesterday that state and federal officials need to stop having "goddamn press conferences" and get relief efforts moving. "We have an incredible crisis here and [the president's] flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice," Nagin said in a radio interview last night. "Excuse my French, everybody in America, but I am pissed."

Seriously, good for him. He said what needed to be said, without fear of "offending" anyone.

This will be the end of the Bush administration. A pity it cost so many lives.

Lunch-Time, I'll be back . :)

The problem of New Orleans being unable to withstand a cat 4 or 5 huricane has been known for decades. Trying to place the blame entirely on the Bush administration is tunnel vision.

All I can say is once again your blind support of the Bush administration is showing and you couldn't be more wrong on this one Corneliu!

It wasn't a secret that levees built to keep New Olreans from flooding could not withsand a major hurricane, but government leaders never found the money to fully shore up the network of earthen, steel and concrete barriers.

BOTH THE BUSH AND CLINTON AMDINISTRATIONS PROPOSED BUDGETS THAT LOW-BALLED THE NEEDS Local politicans grabbed whatever money they could and declared victory. And the public didn't exactly demand tax increases to pay for flood-control and hurrican-protection products.

You were saying?

The mayor definitely dropped the ball first. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015)

How many school buses could've been used to transport people?

I heard an interview the other day with someone who's been working with the levees, and he said that for the past 5 years, they've known that the levees wouldn't hold, and they told Bush (Not Clinton - note earlier: FIVE years) that it posed an incredible risk, and they needed more money.
Bush said no. He needed his war toys out in Iraq.
Yeah, the Clinton admin didn't do anything about the possibilities of terrorists on air planes, either, but by the time frame I heard, this one lands squarely on Bush's shoulders. He's had LOTS of time to stop this disaster from happening, and didn't.

The problem of New Orleans being unable to withstand a cat 4 or 5 huricane has been known for decades. Trying to place the blame entirely on the Bush administration is tunnel vision.

You are entirely correct however people's blind hatred of Bush is clouding their vision. Now I'm off to my 100 and 200 oclock classes. Be back around 3:00!

I heard an interview the other day with someone who's been working with the levees, and he said that for the past 5 years, they've known that the levees wouldn't hold, and they told Bush (Not Clinton - note earlier: FIVE years) that it posed an incredible risk, and they needed more money.

Uh, Bush wasn't president til 2001. So five years ago also puts things in the lap of the Clinton administration, don't it?

I heard an interview the other day with someone who's been working with the levees, and he said that for the past 5 years, they've known that the levees wouldn't hold, and they told Bush (Not Clinton - note earlier: FIVE years) that it posed an incredible risk, and they needed more money.
Bush said no. He needed his war toys out in Iraq.
Yeah, the Clinton admin didn't do anything about the possibilities of terrorists on air planes, either, but by the time frame I heard, this one lands squarely on Bush's shoulders. He's had LOTS of time to stop this disaster from happening, and didn't.

Was talking earlier with a person who lives in Denmark and he said that the levees there and in the Netherlands are built at a 10:1 ratio. Thus a levee 20' high would be 200' wide and behind that one is another levee at a distance of 150' to 1000' which serves as a backup.

Looking at a google Earth map of NO, it appears there would be no way to construct such levees without first having to relocate very large numbers of people and businesses as there are buildings and homes almost right up next to the levees that are there.

1. It is unfair to say that the levees were unprepaired. The city and the Army Corp of Engineers had scheduled putting in much stronger levees before Katrina.
2. I feel that FEMA has come a long way since Hurricane Hugo. They mostly specialize in this stuff nowadays. But it's hard to deliver relief to New Orleans when its trucks are hijacked and volunteers are killed. Perhaps the refocusing on terrorism hasn't gone far enough. Perhaps we need to militarize FEMA.

Here you go, a step by step for those of you who have been misinformed of what happened.

Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? 'Times-Picayune' Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313)

By Will Bunch

Published: August 31, 2005 9:00 PM ET

PHILADELPHIA Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it's level with the massive lake.

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."

The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:

"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late.

One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.

The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Bunch (letters@editorandpublisher.com) is senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1992 when he reported for Newsday. Much of this article also appears on his blog, Attytood, at the Daily News.

Uh, Bush wasn't president til 2001. So five years ago also puts things in the lap of the Clinton administration, don't it?
True that, but Bush was president a week ago when it became patently obvious that New Orleans was about to get smashed by a category 5 hurricane. Forget the fact that the levees weren't maintained by any of the many jurisdictions & politicians that should have been taking care of them. There is plenty of blame to spread around on that front, but Bush and Cheney needed to get their happy asses off the golf courses & fly-fishing rivers at least a week ago to start orchestrating an immediate & thorough response to the disaster that they knew was coming. Bush & Cheney failed to act when disaster was imminent. That is a far more heinous crime than failing to respond to some vague & general threat that may or may not come to a head eventually.

True that, but Bush was president a week ago when it became patently obvious that New Orleans was about to get smashed by a category 5 hurricane. Forget the fact that the levees weren't maintained by any of the many jurisdictions & politicians that should have been taking care of them. There is plenty of blame to spread around on that front, but Bush and Cheney needed to get their happy asses off the golf courses & fly-fishing rivers at least a week ago to start orchestrating an immediate & thorough response to the disaster that they knew was coming. Bush & Cheney failed to act when disaster was imminent. That is a far more heinous crime than failing to respond to some vague & general threat that may or may not come to a head eventually.

Katrina was a cat 1 hurricane a week ago, became a cat 3 on Saturday and a cat 5 on Sunday.

Stephy,

You haven't told the whole truth here at all. Both George H. W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, as well as George W. Bush have cut that budget. Don't try to blame all of this on Bush. Its not all his fault and to attribute it as entirely his fault is insane.

Try actually reading facts before spouting your political bullshit.


Excuse me Mr. Factmeister?

The entire SELA project to secure the coastline around New Orleans was implemented in 1995 after flooding killed several people. Now who do you think was President in '95?

Indeed, if we take a quick peek (http://www.selaprojects.com/) at the SELA website, we find the following note:


Those who were there remember it like it was yesterday. Like all late springs in south Louisiana, the weather was bordering on stifling and the humidity clung in the air. A storm was brewing that would soon devastate whole sections of the New Orleans area. The infamous May 1995 flood was a nightmare for many and a $545 million financial burden for Jefferson Parish residents.
Coincidentally, at about the same time, Jefferson Parish officials were discussing plans for a new and innovative program called Southeast Louisiana Flood Control, or SELA. The program would upgrade canals and pumping stations throughout the Parish, bringing drainage improvements that would promise to reduce flooding during heavy rains. After the May 95 flood, the Jefferson Parish administration and Council kicked the program into high gear, aggressively lobbying Congress for funding and finalizing plans for implementation.

Jefferson Parish was on the verge of the largest and most ambitious public works project ever undertaken in the Parish. The Federal Government, with much prodding from our Congressional Delegation, agreed to fund 75 percent of SELA's costs on condition that Jefferson Parish would pay the remaining 25 percent through lands, relocations and cash. Over the next five years, Parish officials would spend more money on drainage improvements than the Parish had spent in the previous 15 years.


Now we'll do a little basic math.

1995 + "next five years" = 2000.

Now who was president from 1995 to 2000?


Did congress under Clinton approve ENOUGH money for SELA? Go ahead and argue that if you like, (although if you had any brains you'd realize that you would be pissing on a Republican controlled house during that timeframe), but do NOT sit there and state that Clinton "cut the budget" for the protection of New Orleans and railing against others to check facts.

Clinton didn't CUT the budget, he CREATED the damn budget for this effort, and funded it well. The cuts kicked in in 2001 when Homeland Security meant... well, who the hell knows what it means anymore.

Is it ALL GW's fault? No, of course not. There are state responsibilities and I'm pretty sure that he doesn't control the weather.

But did huge funding cuts over the past several years contribute to the lack of preparedness? Did his gutting the only Federal Agecy tasked with organizing distaster relief contribute to the curent mess?

Worthwhile questions to ask, IF you have more to offer than blind partisan BS and petty personal slights against other posters here to offer that is. So far though, that's all I see from you in this thread.

I have read all the posts here and would like to broadly agree with the progressive denial problem in the US Administration.

However Clinton failed because he needed Republican support in Senate to keep things moving. Bush doesn't have that problem.

The Republican party will only keep its credibility as a ruling power because, as a result of the fuel crisis caused by Katerina, Oil companies will be able to make lots of money selling oil and petrol at vastly inflated prices. They will then be able to finance another blind puppet to look after their interests in the world. George Bush has only one fault... He truly believes HE is in control.

watching repairs being done as shown on CNN and it's amazing how thin they are. Two trucks couldn't drive side by side on the top of them.

My husband as you all know him as Zeppistan, wrote this in his journal today. I felt that enough time has passed, as did he to post such a thread.
Outrage set in for me when heard that Bush was STILL ON VACATION while people were dying in the greatest natural disaster to hit this country in generations (and possibly ever). The outrage sunk in further when I learned Condi Rice went on vacation AFTER THE DISASTER STARTED. And the outrage boiled over entirely when I learned Dick Cheney was also ON FUCKING VACATION during this crisis.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, dead and dying. A major city obliterated, and an entire region of the country plunged suddenly into third-world conditions. AND THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SECRETARY OF STATE ARE ALL ON VACATION.

The Chimp smirked through a couple of recent appearances, and muttered cheerfully about how he "understands." Can I see a show of hands of how many people believe that? Yes, you in the back? Oh, yes yes, you can go to the lavatory...go on...now really, anybody believe Bush? Didn't think so.

I think America needs to realize the painful and horrifying truth: we have no President. See, most of us have been slowly coming to terms with the possibility that we had another Nero on our hands, an incompetant and empty boob who embarasses us at every turn, but the reality is worse than we imagined. We simply have nothing. Bush can't even do the bare fucking minimum of SHOWING THE HELL UP when shit is going down for his country.

They tried to kick Clinton out of office for getting a blowjob. I wonder if anybody will even bother to ask Bush to explain himself? I know we aren't allowed to take our lips off the pretty pink buttcheeks of Dear Leader long enough to criticize anything this administration does, but maybe we can make an exception just this once? Maybe we can ask him why hundreds of people had to die because he wanted to play guitar instead of playing President. Maybe we can ask Condi Rice why buying Ferragamo shoes on 5th Ave was more important than helping save the lives of the people she was hired to serve. Maybe we can ask why rebuilding Iraq is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert doesn't think we should rebuild New Orleans.

Frankly, Zepp and Steph, "outrage" doesn't go far enough.

[QUOTE=Shut Your Stupid Face]True that, but Bush was president a week ago when it became patently obvious that New Orleans was about to get smashed by a category 5 hurricane. QUOTE]


Exactly. Who gives a crap whose fault it is that the problem exists? It's his job to frigging fix it now. Bush (and plenty of other pols) always have time to blame somebody else for why stuff doesn't work now and plenty of time to explain why it takes so long for them to do anything useful, but they never have time to shift their fat asses and actually do it.

As usual, beautifully said Bottle! Although, there is no glory in being right about this one. Because of the devastation that has happened and is still happening. I wish we were wrong in fact. But the sad truth of it is, we're not. And that really freaking sucks! Very well said though Bottle. Thank you.

Hey for those of you trying to make this political and criticize Bush, I'm going to say.. fuck off.

This isn't the time for it. We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.

We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.

Then you're not paying attention.

Hey for those of you trying to make this political and criticize Bush, I'm going to say.. fuck off.

This isn't the time for it. We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.


Right.

The reality is people are dying. Criticizing ANYONE about this is clearly a dumb-fuck thing to do until it's all over. Ohhh, say - like criticizing the piss-poorly managed response to save those lives would be TOTALLY out of line.



Now, will YOU tell the President to fuck off and that he's out of line?


Or shall I do it for you?


Or is it that HE is allowed to criticize the people doing the work, but we can't criticize him for not?

Hey for those of you trying to make this political and criticize Bush, I'm going to say.. fuck off.

This isn't the time for it. We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.
A "PRETTY GOOD JOB"?!

This isn't about politicizing a disaster (something BushCo wrote the fucking book on, in case you don't remember), this is about realizing that two disasters have taken place in Lousiana. One was a natural disaster, horrifying enough in its own right, but the other is purely man-made. It is a disaster of incompetance. It is a disaster born from slashing budgets against all the expert warnings. It is a disaster born from leaders who won't lead, and who won't let anybody else (like the Canadians or the Jamaicans or the Venezuelans) lead either. It is a disaster that exploded on all of us because the people we hired to serve this country wanted to play guitar and buy new shoes instead of doing their jobs.

It is a disaster that could have been prevented. And it is fucking unforgivable.

Hey for those of you trying to make this political and criticize Bush, I'm going to say.. fuck off.

This isn't the time for it. We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.
quit trolling....

as far as it being political. This isn't the first thread about Katrina that has been so, so why all the hate in this one? What has he being doing a good job at?

but back to what i was gonna say.... Bush shoulda declared a national disaster area as soon as the levees broke. lotta shoulda coulda wouldas here. However, it really falls on the local gov't (the state of lousiana and the city of new orleans) to manage crisis in their states, so if bush and co were on vacation, unless the local gov't asks for it, they shouldn't get involved.

again, lotta shoulda coulda wouldas...

and Mes, this thread is a political thread. kinda hard to tell ppl to stop about politics when the thread is started because of politics ;P

Hey for those of you trying to make this political and criticize Bush, I'm going to say.. fuck off.

This isn't the time for it. We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.

There are those who find this as a chance to be critical of Bush and then there are those who are just contcentrating on the governor of Louisiana, the mayor of NO and even the people who stayed for one reason or another.

This disaster was a long time in coming and there's plenty of blame that could go around but that does little right now to help those who are in dire need of it.

You actually might be surprised. If Bush does this right, he'll be hailed as the person that saved New Orleans. That is if he does it right. Also, if he does the right thing by meeting refugees and does what he promises he will do, his approval numbers will go up. In fact, I'm expecting a small rise in his approval numbers. He's doing all he can to help the people down there but I think he needs to declare martial law down there to restore order.

Can President Bush declare martial law, or is that the jurisddiction of the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi?

And I have to ask... how much of the protection of Nawlins is the responsibility of the state of Louisiana? Is there a benchmark set... for the sharing of responsibility?

Hey for those of you trying to make this political and criticize Bush, I'm going to say.. fuck off.

This isn't the time for it. We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.
Sorry, but telling people to fuck off is inappropiate. George W Bush is a politician. Everything he does & does not do is political. If he & his team had been on the ball to get real relief in quickly, he'd be strutting around New Orleans to make sure that we all knew what a great job he did. People on the right would praise him for the awesome job he did. People on the left would complain that he's trying to take all the glory. I really wish that was the case right now, but unfortunately everything went all wrong. Now we've got the people on the right trying to spread the blame to everyone else & people on the left trying to lay as much blame as possible on Bush. That's the life of a politician.

I can't see how you can say he's doing a pretty good job. What would have to hppen for you to label it a pretty bad job?

Hey for those of you trying to make this political and criticize Bush, I'm going to say.. fuck off.

This isn't the time for it. We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.

Mesatecala, if you are going to say that Bush has done a pretty good job, then you might as well enlighten us as to what he has done that is so great. Will you indulge us?

http://www.click2houston.com/news/4887230/detail.html
I just posted this on here to show that you guys aren't the only ones outraged. Most people are, save for maybe the aidworkers.

A "PRETTY GOOD JOB"?!

This isn't about politicizing a disaster (something BushCo wrote the fucking book on, in case you don't remember), this is about realizing that two disasters have taken place in Lousiana. One was a natural disaster, horrifying enough in its own right, but the other is purely man-made. It is a disaster of incompetance. It is a disaster born from slashing budgets against all the expert warnings. It is a disaster born from leaders who won't lead, and who won't let anybody else (like the Canadians or the Jamaicans or the Venezuelans) lead either. It is a disaster that exploded on all of us because the people we hired to serve this country wanted to play guitar and buy new shoes instead of doing their jobs.

It is a disaster that could have been prevented. And it is fucking unforgivable.

I'm sorry but how the fuck can you prevent a hurricane from hitting a coastline? How the heck can you evacuate an entire city in that time? I think you should really bugger off, because this was something that wasn't avoidable.

You political jerks who think you can use my own family losses for your political gain better stop this. Start respecting the people who lost, and stop using them for your own political gain. You are nothing more then self indulging hypocrites.

Sorry, but telling people to fuck off is inappropiate. George W Bush is a politician. Everything he does & does not do is political. If he & his team had been on the ball to get real relief in quickly, he'd be strutting around New Orleans to make sure that we all knew what a great job he did. People on the right would praise him for the awesome job he did. People on the left would complain that he's trying to take all the glory. I really wish that was the case right now, but unfortunately everything went all wrong. Now we've got the people on the right trying to spread the blame to everyone else & people on the left trying to lay as much blame as possible on Bush. That's the life of a politician.

I can't see how you can say he's doing a pretty good job. What would have to hppen for you to label it a pretty bad job?

Wow, so many fucking lies. So many lies, one after another...he's doing a very good job in helping these people now the national guard troops got in.

And I have to ask... how much of the protection of Nawlins is the responsibility of the state of Louisiana? Is there a benchmark set... for the sharing of responsibility?

Louisiana agreed to match federal funds to fix the levees, but the White House rejected it. Not sure if you read the whole thread or not, but this was clearly said, and gives a time-line of events, or shall I say "cuts"

Time-Line (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313)

Seriously, good for him. He said what needed to be said, without fear of "offending" anyone.

As I would expect from the mayor of New Orleans. The people there elected someone who spoke for them, like them. He's speaking his mind. I think he has a right to be pissed. I think he would be doing his constituents an injustice if he didn't get pissed.

Hey for those of you trying to make this political and criticize Bush, I'm going to say.. fuck off.

This isn't the time for it. We need to focus on the reality. From what I've been seeing he's being doing a pretty good job.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9568090&postcount=17
Hey Sinuhue, could you for one day manage not use a fucking disaster, that effected my own family, for your own political gains? That goes for the rest of you. You should be ashamed of yourself. If my uncle was here, he would not spare any of you. He lost everything as I have found out too.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9568067&postcount=14
You are so full of it.

I'm sorry but this operation is costing the US $500 million a day. So please... shut up. There is no way that Chavez could even come close.

You don't seem to get it, do you? You continue to insult people who do not agree with you, rather than argue with them in proper debate. You've been warnings repeatedly to knock it off, and you don't listen.
Mesatecala: 3-Day Forumban for Flaming
Come back when you've learned not to insult people for their beliefs.

Wow, so many fucking lies. So many lies, one after another...he's doing a very good job in helping these people now the national guard troops got in.

Thats your argument? We are telling fibs?
Why don't you prove that?
While you are at it, prove that the President of the United States of America is doing a good job!

I'm sorry but how the fuck can you prevent a hurricane from hitting a coastline? How the heck can you evacuate an entire city in that time? I think you should really bugger off, because this was something that wasn't avoidable.

You political jerks who think you can use my own family losses for your political gain better stop this. Start respecting the people who lost, and stop using them for your own political gain. You are nothing more then self indulging hypocrites.


Right.

Because examining WHY a disaster is as bad as it is - is a pointless exercise. After all, we wouldn't want to LEARN from our mistakes now would we?

Like, say, Hurricane Andrew where Bush Sr. did sweet FA for a few days save hang around his vacation spot having photo ops? Where the response was poor, and which clearly showed some of the deficiencies with not having a properly tasked disaster reponse team?



Gee, who the hell would expect anyone to learn from THAT?

I "better stop this"?



Make me.

I'm sorry but how the fuck can you prevent a hurricane from hitting a coastline? How the heck can you evacuate an entire city in that time? I think you should really bugger off, because this was something that wasn't avoidable.

You political jerks who think you can use my own family losses for your political gain better stop this. Start respecting the people who lost, and stop using them for your own political gain. You are nothing more then self indulging hypocrites.

You need to calm down and stop w/ the flame/baiting.

You have family in NO/MississippI?

You can't prevent a hurricane from hitting a coastline (at least... not w/o a big fan :P) they had quite some time to evacuate. It's not about evac'ing the entire city, but the limited amount of help in the evacuation. Again, calm down or leave the thread, you'll get reported otherwise.

I don't know if anyone has considers this yet, but...consider this...

How would the response be different if it were terrorists, and not a hurricane, that causes the levees to break? Fact of the matter is, the situation would be the same in New Orleans, except there'd be more casualties as no one would have been evacuated in order to get away from the hurricane that they knew was coming. If terrorists destroyed the levees, and the media knew the levees were destroyed by terrorists, and were reporting it as such, would the response be the same, and just as slow? If so, what lessons did we learn from 9-11? Who cares if no one expected the levees to break? How is that any more or less of a surprise than if terrorists would have broken them without the forewarning that the hurricane gave? If this were clearly an act of terrorism, the response to the federal aid would be even more distasteful across the nation, which raises the question: if this were an act of terrorism, and the response was quicker than this response to the hurricane, then how is the life of civilians more important in response to terrorism than in response to a natural disaster? Why are the disasters, terroristic or natural, not treated more similarly?

Outrage set in for me when heard that Bush was STILL ON VACATION while people were dying in the greatest natural disaster to hit this country in generations (and possibly ever). The outrage sunk in further when I learned Condi Rice went on vacation AFTER THE DISASTER STARTED. And the outrage boiled over entirely when I learned Dick Cheney was also ON FUCKING VACATION during this crisis.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, dead and dying. A major city obliterated, and an entire region of the country plunged suddenly into third-world conditions. AND THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SECRETARY OF STATE ARE ALL ON VACATION.

The Chimp smirked through a couple of recent appearances, and muttered cheerfully about how he "understands." Can I see a show of hands of how many people believe that? Yes, you in the back? Oh, yes yes, you can go to the lavatory...go on...now really, anybody believe Bush? Didn't think so.

I think America needs to realize the painful and horrifying truth: we have no President. See, most of us have been slowly coming to terms with the possibility that we had another Nero on our hands, an incompetant and empty boob who embarasses us at every turn, but the reality is worse than we imagined. We simply have nothing. Bush can't even do the bare fucking minimum of SHOWING THE HELL UP when shit is going down for his country.

They tried to kick Clinton out of office for getting a blowjob. I wonder if anybody will even bother to ask Bush to explain himself? I know we aren't allowed to take our lips off the pretty pink buttcheeks of Dear Leader long enough to criticize anything this administration does, but maybe we can make an exception just this once? Maybe we can ask him why hundreds of people had to die because he wanted to play guitar instead of playing President. Maybe we can ask Condi Rice why buying Ferragamo shoes on 5th Ave was more important than helping save the lives of the people she was hired to serve. Maybe we can ask why rebuilding Iraq is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert doesn't think we should rebuild New Orleans.

Frankly, Zepp and Steph, "outrage" doesn't go far enough.

hmmm, you didn't give people time. I believe him. He's not a liar like Clinton was (or at least as filthy a liar). He didn't know about the WMDs and the fact is, they WERE in Iraq and may still be (we can't have searched EVERYWHERE yet).

I would imagine that the people who hate Bush won't believe him, and the people who support him will.

Okay, I'm taking a couple of deep breaths, and I want to just give a quick apology for my language. My posts have been just the tiniest bit heated, as you may have noticed, and I am really trying to chill. I'm sorry if I contributed to getting Mesatecala in trouble, since I know I probably inflamed an already tense situation.

hmmm, you didn't give people time. I believe him. He's not a liar like Clinton was (or at least as filthy a liar). He didn't know about the WMDs and the fact is, they WERE in Iraq and may still be (we can't have searched EVERYWHERE yet).

I would imagine that the people who hate Bush won't believe him, and the people who support him will.
What dissappoints me is that congress still has not yet convened.

the fact that anyone is using this as a political rally is very Sheehanesque (a very negative term). This is not a time, nor a valid case, for political grandstanding/finger-pointing.

Bush didn't cause the flood

Bush could not prevent the damage

Bush is not God

Bush does not control the economy

If we were in Iraq for oil, we'd HAVE their oil and our gas prices would not be half as high as they are now.

If you Dems want to bitch about something, here you go:

What I want to know is, where is the attorney general? (if you're going to be pissed about someone not showing his face... with all the lawlessness down there, perhaps the AG should say or do something).

And I'm sorry, but some of those people did not try to get out. "It's just a storm... we've seen this before." They were shouted at from a dozen differnt directions to leave, but decided not to.

Worse, of course, are those who stayed in order to steal once everyone was evacuated.

Finally, I don't care if you give FEMA a trillion dollars to spend, if they're getting shot at by criminals, what are they gonna do? Just keep driving? Either the Pres or the state governors should have declared martial law either BEFORE Katrina hit or VERY SOON AFTERWARD to keep things from getting out of hand. I just don't think anyone could foresee how severe the chaos would be.

Okay, I'm taking a couple of deep breaths, and I want to just give a quick apology for my language. My posts have been just the tiniest bit heated, as you may have noticed, and I am really trying to chill. I'm sorry if I contributed to getting Mesatecala in trouble, since I know I probably inflamed an already tense situation.

Don't worry. That guy has had a chip on his shoulder for days now.

Back to the argument!

I'm sorry but how the fuck can you prevent a hurricane from hitting a coastline? How the heck can you evacuate an entire city in that time? I think you should really bugger off, because this was something that wasn't avoidable.

You political jerks who think you can use my own family losses for your political gain better stop this. Start respecting the people who lost, and stop using them for your own political gain. You are nothing more then self indulging hypocrites.

His family suffered and he's angry -- and he already got yelled at -- so I guess he deserves some slack, but it's more than okay to criticize pols for their poor response, it's important to do so. As others have said, there was plenty of warning about Katrina, even more about the levees, and plenty of past disasters to learn from. If this is how the current gov responds with that much prep time, then what will happen if the "big one" hits California? Or if Mt. Ranier finally erupts and takes most of Seattle with it? (Both scenarios with way less warning than a hurricane.) People have to know if they can count on their leaders, or if we need new ones -- asap.

the fact that anyone is using this as a political rally is bery Sheehanesque (a very negative term).
Not really. Anyone using it as a partisan political rally, sure. But anyone expressing disgust with the government as a whole isn't really doing anything wrong. In fact, to not express disgust (if you feel disgusted) with the government's response would be undemocratic and unAmerican.

Whoa!! Look at the impact of Hurricane Katrina!! Greta van Sustrand gave up searching for her daughter in Aruba and now she's in Houston covering Katrina!

The death toll in New Orleans(and elsewhere in the south, Biloxi for example, but New Orleans has been the rallying point in all this) will most likely exceed that of 9/11.

Will we refer to this event as 8/31? Will it have a more creative name like 'The Great New Orleans Flood"? I don't know.

Whether or not it's right to blame Bush for this, whether or not it's right to blame the Iraq War for this, we definitely need to take steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. Assessing blame is part of that. Accepting responsibility is another part. Politicians have never been good at that. But they seem to have gotten far worse at it in the last 20 years. We have to acknowledge what and who went wrong if this is going to be prevented in the future.

I suggest that people who blindly blame Bush and those who blindly follow Bush to temporarily set aside their blinders and follow the trail of incompetence back to it's source. Wherever it leads.

After, of course, we deal with the DISASTER ITSELF!!! Blame isn't going to feed anyone. Or drain water away! Or carry in medical supplies! It isn't going to give the dead proper funerals before cholera shows it's ugly head.

I've been to two fundraisers in the last 48 hours. What have YOU done?!?

hmmm, you didn't give people time. I believe him. He's not a liar like Clinton was (or at least as filthy a liar). He didn't know about the WMDs and the fact is, they WERE in Iraq and may still be (we can't have searched EVERYWHERE yet).

I would imagine that the people who hate Bush won't believe him, and the people who support him will.
"Didn't give people time."

Congress was in emergency session less than 48 hours after Terry Shiavo's feeding tube was removed. How many days has it been since this disaster hit?

Remind me again about that "culture of life," won't you?

"Didn't give people time."

Congress was in emergency session less than 48 hours after Terry Shiavo's feeding tube was removed. How many days has it been since this disaster hit?

Remind me again about that "culture of life," won't you?
And on a Sunday evening no less.

Christian fundamentalists have blamed the Hurricane on a gay party held annualy in New Orelans.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2005/08/31/2

Who the president is doesn't matter. What does matter is that we should be doing all that we can to help the people. Whether that be monitary, volunteering, or, if you are religious, praying. I think that it is time to stop whining and get it together to help.

--Rachel

I'm sorry but how the fuck can you prevent a hurricane from hitting a coastline? How the heck can you evacuate an entire city in that time? I think you should really bugger off, because this was something that wasn't avoidable.
Obviously you can't prevent a hurricane from hitting a coastline, and I don't think anyone has suggested that would be possible. It is also probably impossible to evacuate a city of 1/2 million people with rather short notice.

It is, however, possible to identify that there is a category 5 hurricane spinning in the Gulf of Mexico and know that it will certainly hit the coastline somewhere. It is also possible to know that you've slashed the funding to reinforce the levees in New Orleans, the city that had been identified a couple days in advance as most likely to be hit by the storm. It is also possible to begin orchestrating a disaster relief effort before the storm has hit (assemble food, water, medical supplies and people in nearby areas to be dispatched immediately to the places they are needed most after the storm hits). It is also possible to not divert so much of the National Guard's people and equipment to your own quixotic quest to wipe the earth clean of evildoers. It is also possible to say "Hey, I don't think I should be spending time promoting my new Medicare programs while thousands of people are starving & drowning."

Thank you, but I'll decline to bugger off. While the storm itself was unavoidable, so much of the aftermath was entirely predictable and avoidable.

Who the president is doesn't matter. What does matter is that we should be doing all that we can to help the people. Whether that be monitary, volunteering, or, if you are religious, praying. I think that it is time to stop whining and get it together to help.

--Rachel
It's also time to stop taking time out for photo ops and press conferences and get stuff done.
It's also time to get law makers back on capitol hill to get things done.

It's also time to stop taking time out for photo ops and press conferences and get stuff done.
It's also time to get law makers back on capitol hill to get things done.

Agreed. We just need to get out there and help however much possible.

And they are already bringing out the anti Bush conspiracy theories.

Christian fundamentalists have blamed the Hurricane on a gay party held annualy in New Orelans.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2005/08/31/2

When are some of these cretins going to wake up and realize that God doesn't give a shit?!? :rolleyes:

And they are already bringing out the anti Bush conspiracy theories.

There is no conspiracy here, it's all over the news. :rolleyes:

It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there.

It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there.

This has what to do with the disaster? Or are you asserting that god did in fact do it? Talk about conspiracy theories, sheesh!

It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there.

God, I miss New Orleans already. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-021.gif

And they are already bringing out the anti Bush conspiracy theories.
Is "conspiracy" what you call it when conservative and liberal pundits, and conservative and liberal politicians, point out the already-obvious fact that the President isn't doing his job?

I guess you would consider it a "secret" if I loudly announced that the sky is blue, then?

It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there.
But it's not like you are gloating over the distruction and loss of life. Nope, not one bit.

It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there.
Let's do a little experiment. I'll tell your god to go fuck himself, and if he punishes me we know he exists if not, then we know he doesn't exist.

You're all forgetting one thing folks. The fact that we are still at war. When this war started, no one was thinking of levees. You forget that New Orleans has been around for over 200 years and has suffered dozens and dozens of severe hurricanes. None of those caused as much harm to the city as this recent one did. Therefore, it was logical to assume the city could withstand another hurricane. That's why the money was shifted from NO, to the war on terror where it was needed more.

You can all talk all you want about "how we now know differently". As everyone knows, hindsight is always 20/20. But predicting that levees are going to break at a specific time, unless you are psychic is going to get you treated like you are a psycho. Further, when you are concerned about other terrorist attacks on your nation, you are not thinking about the 5% probability of a levee breaking somewhere.

You're all forgetting one thing folks. The fact that we are still at war. When this war started, no one was thinking of levees. You forget that New Orleans has been around for over 200 years and has suffered dozens and dozens of severe hurricanes. None of those caused as much harm to the city as this recent one did. Therefore, it was logical to assume the city could withstand another hurricane. That's why the money was shifted from NO, to the war on terror where it was needed more.

You can all talk all you want about "how we now know differently". As everyone knows, hindsight is always 20/20. But predicting that levees are going to break at a specific time, unless you are psychic is going to get you treated like you are a psycho. Further, when you are concerned about other terrorist attacks on your nation, you are not thinking about the 5% probability of a levee breaking somewhere.

If only what you were saying was true.

SOURCE (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313)

Let's do a little experiment. I'll tell your god to go fuck himself, and if he punishes me we know he exists if not, then we know he doesn't exist.
911 was meant to be a wake up call. The tsunami was meant to be a wakeup call. The bombings in London were meant as a wake up call.
This is a wake up call.
Stop sinning, stop taking advantage of the poor and the weak. Stop robbing your neighbor. Stop committing adultery. Stop abortion. Etc.
The American people, the world needs to repent and return to God.

Edit: If New Orleans had confessed it was the capital of sin in America and repented, God would have blocked the flood waters. But because they allowed sin to bury their great city, God allowed it to be deluged.
God did not cause the flooding, he allowed people to cause it with their recklessness, lack of morality, lack of social responsibility.

Can we please stick to the facts and keep the religious zealotry out of this please?

Further, when you are concerned about other terrorist attacks on your nation, you are not thinking about the 5% probability of a levee breaking somewhere.
That percentage seems significantly random, however, I'll let it slide, and touch on this comment anyway.

Here's a what-if. What if terrorists destroyed the levees? You'd have an even worse situation in New Orleans. No one at all would have been evacuated from New Orleans because there would be no hurricane to give them warning. Also, in this what-if, it doesn't matter how strong or weak the levees are built, just assume terrorists destroyed them.

What if this were the case? Do the politicians' excuses of "no one expected this" still work, especially in the post 9-11 world?

The American people, the world needs to repent and return to God.
Like, instead of doing something, just fall on your knees and grovel?

That percentage seems significantly random, however, I'll let it slide, and touch on this comment anyway.

Here's a what-if. What if terrorists destroyed the levees? You'd have an even worse situation in New Orleans. No one at all would have been evacuated from New Orleans because there would be no hurricane to give them warning. Also, in this what-if, it doesn't matter how strong or weak the levees are built, just assume terrorists destroyed them.

What if this were the case? Do the politicians' excuses of "no one expected this" still work, especially in the post 9-11 world?
The post 911 cautionism only applies to terrorism.

Edit: Bush is now calling his own actions unacceptable. Since he's calling it, I guess I can stop defending his actions on the hurricane now.

When I started this thread, all I wanted was an intelligent discussion on the cuts to the funding for protecting New Orleans from a natural disaster. I guess that was simply too much to ask for. By all means, hijack my thread with god and all unrelated topics.. Thanks! :rolleyes: :headbang:

911 was meant to be a wake up call. The tsunami was meant to be a wakeup call. The bombings in London were meant as a wake up call.
This is a wake up call.
Stop sinning, stop taking advantage of the poor and the weak. Stop robbing your neighbor. Stop committing adultery. Stop abortion. Etc.
The American people, the world needs to repent and return to God.

Edit: If New Orleans had confessed it was the capital of sin in America and repented, God would have blocked the flood waters. But because they allowed sin to bury their great city, God allowed it to be deluged.
God did not cause the flooding, he allowed people to cause it with their recklessness, lack of morality, lack of social responsibility.

And the food. God hated rich Cajun food. :p

Like, instead of doing something, just fall on your knees and grovel?
That's not repentance. Repentance is correcting the wrong you have done.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the needed improvements in the levees that were not done. Does anyone know if the imporvements would have enabled the levees to handle a cat 4 or 5 hurricane?

When I started this thread, all I wanted was an intelligent discussion on the cuts to the funding for protecting New Orleans from a natural disaster. I guess that was simply too much to ask for. By all means, hijack my thread with god and all unrelated topics.. Thanks! :rolleyes: :headbang:
meh... Looks like Bush agrees with you.

Bush didn't cause the flood

Bush is not God

If we were in Iraq for oil, we'd HAVE their oil and our gas prices would not be half as high as they are now.

What I want to know is, where is the attorney general? (if you're going to be pissed about someone not showing his face... with all the lawlessness down there, perhaps the AG should say or do something).

And I'm sorry, but some of those people did not try to get out. "It's just a storm... we've seen this before." They were shouted at from a dozen differnt directions to leave, but decided not to.

Worse, of course, are those who stayed in order to steal once everyone was evacuated.

Finally, I don't care if you give FEMA a trillion dollars to spend, if they're getting shot at by criminals, what are they gonna do? Just keep driving?

No, Bush did not cause the flood, but when his administration & his Republican buddies in Congress stopped funding the needed repairs on the levees it didn't do much to help prevent the flood.

No, Bush is not God. Thank God for that.

If we were in Iraq for oil WITH a decent plan, then we weould have would have their oil and gas prices would be lower. Unfortunately, incompetent planning tends to cause a lot of problems (see Hurricane Katrina).

The Attorney General plan is brilliant. Why didn't anyone think of that earlier? I'm sure everything in New Orleans would be peachy keen if only they had sent the lawyers in.

It is true that some people chose not to leave. Those people are stupid. Do stupid people deserve to die? What about people who are impoverished and have nowhere else to go? Perhaps they don't have family out of state that they can go live with. Perhaps they lack money to purchase a car with which to flee. Perhaps American Airlines won't sell you a plane ticket for food stamps. What about the sick and eldery who are physically incapable of moving themselves? Do they deserve to suffer & die? Obviously not.

Yes, the ones who stayed to steal are despicable. Certainly we can't forsake all the others due to the criminal activity of a few. Many of those who are "looting" are looting food, water, medical supplies.

If they are getting shot at by criminals, yes they should indeed keep driving. Preferrably they would drive right over the people doing the shooting on their way to help those in need.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the needed improvements in the levees that were not done. Does anyone know if the imporvements would have enabled the levees to handle a cat 4 or 5 hurricane?
Very unlikely, even if the improvements had been made. It's kind of difficult to design a levee to withstand a Cat 5. A cat 4, though just as difficult, would have been a little more easy to do.

The post 911 cautionism only applies to terrorism.

Edit: Bush is now calling his own actions unacceptable. Since he's calling it, I guess I can stop defending his actions on the hurricane now.
HOW DOES IT MATTER WHETHER THIS IS A HURRICANE OR AN ACT OF TERRORISM?

As I explained, the majority of the problems are not because of the Hurricane, which citizens were well aware of ahead of time (plenty evac'ed, plenty hung around). The majority of the problems are caused by the breaking of the levee. Sure, the hurricane broke the levee, but SUPPOSE there was no hurricane and terrorist broke the levee. Without the warning of the hurricane, there would be EVEN MORE people still stuck in New Orleans, and the problem would be even worse!

If the federal government can't appropriately respond to the aftermath of a hurricane which they had at least some what of a warning of before hand, then how can we expect them to be able to respond to a similar terrorist attack with no warning ahead of time and an even more chaotic and tragic aftermath? And why is saving lives and fixing problems in response to a terrorist attack more important than saving the same lives and fixing the same problems in response to a natural disaster?

Very unlikely, even if the improvements had been made. It's kind of difficult to design a levee to withstand a Cat 5. A cat 4, though just as difficult, would have been a little more easy to do.

Is that your educated guess Whittier? Or do you also have a source to back up that claim?

There has been a great deal of discussion about the needed improvements in the levees that were not done. Does anyone know if the imporvements would have enabled the levees to handle a cat 4 or 5 hurricane?

Handle it? Jeez, who knows? Not much can. A direct hit by a category 5 hurricane is like getting hit by a 50 mile wide tornado. But one of the sections that ruptured(by 17th street canal) was one of the sections due to be rennovated. Maybe it could have survived if it had. A lack of rupture there would have saved billions in recovery cost. Probably a lot of lives too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9157866/

"“The results are not acceptable,” said Bush, who rarely admits failure."

You guys need to give Bush a break.

He already cut short his 5 week vacation. When he gets done reading "Pet Goat II", I'm sure he'll try to react quickly to the crisis.

Edit: Bush is now calling his own actions unacceptable. Since he's calling it, I guess I can stop defending his actions on the hurricane now.
So then, are we only free to criticize those who have already admitted their faults? I think you should lay off the gays until they themselves declare their own actions unacceptable.

Katrina was a cat 1 hurricane a week ago, became a cat 3 on Saturday and a cat 5 on Sunday.

And a Category 4 when it plowed into the LA, Mississippi border. The Western Eye wall hit NO hard.

Everyone knew that the levees wouldn't hold back a Cat. 4 or 5 storm. It plowed right next to N.O. and there is the result. 90% of the city out of commission. 80% of the city under water. Other towns wiped off the map in Alabama and Mississippi. This is most definitely the worst natural disaster since the 1906 San Fransico Earthquake.

Handle it? Jeez, who knows? Not much can. A direct hit by a category 5 hurricane is like getting hit by a 50 mile wide tornado. But one of the sections that ruptured(by 17th street canal) was one of the sections due to be rennovated. Maybe it could have survived if it had. A lack of rupture there would have saved billions in recovery cost. Probably a lot of lives too.

It's not so much could New Orleans or any coastal city handle a Cat5 storm, the answer is probably no. The question is, could the massive floods have been avoided if the work had been done to them that Bush cut the funds for. That has been the real question throughout this thread. (I started the thread, I have a pretty good idea where I was going with it)..LOL :p

When I started this thread, all I wanted was an intelligent discussion on the cuts to the funding for protecting New Orleans from a natural disaster. I guess that was simply too much to ask for. By all means, hijack my thread with god and all unrelated topics.. Thanks! :rolleyes: :headbang:

I agree - I have found this informative (writing from England, we do NOT get all the facts over here) but I find the ranting about sin and God puerile and scary - historically you religious guys should go back and read up on the middle ages (where you would fit in neatly) then come back and learn about the 21rst century and the developments, both social and technological, that have taken place since. Excuse my rant, but foundamentalism of any kind is going to blind us to the ecological an social issues that this tragedy brings up.
Maybe we could discuss global warming, of which this is (I supect) a by product, and what can be done to make sure New Orleans (which I have fond memories of from the middle seventies) survives and, perhaps, grows.

10,000 have died in just Louisiana.

10,000 have died in just Louisiana.

Source?

There are those who find this as a chance to be critical of Bush and then there are those who are just contcentrating on the governor of Louisiana, the mayor of NO and even the people who stayed for one reason or another.

This disaster was a long time in coming and there's plenty of blame that could go around but that does little right now to help those who are in dire need of it.

You are once again correct. According to hte Intelligencer Journal (local lancaster paper that isn't conservative) They listed the people to blame:

The White House
Congress
Federal Agencies
local governments
police
and even residents of the Gulf Coast who refused the orders to evacuate.

my favorite part of the front page article:

"But all the finger-pointing misses the point: Politicians and the people they lead too often ignore danger signs until a crisis hit"

It's not so much could New Orleans or any coastal city handle a Cat5 storm, the answer is probably no. The question is, could the massive floods have been avoided if the work had been done to them that Bush cut the funds for. That has been the real question throughout this thread. (I started the thread, I have a pretty good idea where I was going with it)..LOL :p

I think that with a category 5 hurricane, any amount of safeguards would have still left it as a game of russian roulette. New Orleans is below sea level and surrounded on three sides by major bodies of water. But I think it's clear that the city could have survived it BETTER if some of those ruptured levees hadn't.

Source?
Well, 10,000 haven't JUST died, but on CNN, they just announced that Louisiana's death toll stands at 10,000 at the moment.

Can President Bush declare martial law, or is that the jurisddiction of the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi?

Bush could suspend the Constition in the area. NO mayor cannot. Congress can declare Martial Law in the affected regions. So far that hasn't happened and I want to know why!

And I have to ask... how much of the protection of Nawlins is the responsibility of the state of Louisiana? Is there a benchmark set... for the sharing of responsibility?

That, I don't know. I do know that the National Guard and Police have guns drawn in the NO CBD! It'll be interesting to watch.

I think that with a category 5 hurricane, any amount of safeguards would have still left it as a game of russian roulette. New Orleans is below sea level and surrounded on three sides by major bodies of water. But I think it's clear that the city could have survived it BETTER if some of those ruptured levees hadn't.
Or maybe if the Cajuns didn't build their city with Atlantis in mind?[/sarcasm]

You are once again correct. According to hte Intelligencer Journal (local lancaster paper that isn't conservative) They listed the people to blame:

The White House
Congress
Federal Agencies
local governments
police
and even residents of the Gulf Coast who refused the orders to evacuate.

my favorite part of the front page article:

"But all the finger-pointing misses the point: Politicians and the people they lead too often ignore danger signs until a crisis hit"

Corneliu, please go back to page two of this thread and read my post. Better yet, just click here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)

Source?
The governor of Louisiana

It's not so much could New Orleans or any coastal city handle a Cat5 storm, the answer is probably no. The question is, could the massive floods have been avoided if the work had been done to them that Bush cut the funds for. That has been the real question throughout this thread. (I started the thread, I have a pretty good idea where I was going with it)..LOL :p
Could the floods have been avoided? Probably not.
Could they have been lessened? Probably.
Could more people have been evacuated? Absolutely.
Could everyone have been evacuated? Absolutely not.
Could clean-up in the aftermath have been executed more efficiently with proper planning and allocation of resources in advance? Absolutely.
Who is to blame? Damn near everybody.
When does it turn to anger - outrage? Ummm, I think that already happened.
What can be done about it now? Everybody can go and give great big piles of money to the Red Cross. Those who have real expertise in search & rescue or medical care can get out and volunteer their much needed services. Maybe we could even get some real plans together to actually respond to disasters quickly in the future.

Source?
I just heard it on Fox. Shep Smith quoted a US Representative from the affected area. Just an estimate and no basis for it, except the widespread damage and slow aid response.

The FEMA is FINALLY starting to provide MREs and water, but shortly the city is going to be evacuated. This is a sad response to a terrible disaster. Apparently aid was staged outside the area and it still isn't reaching the victims.

What dissappoints me is that congress still has not yet convened.

Check your facts.

Last night: Senate passed a 10.1 Billion dollar aide bill
Today: House was supposed to have approved it this morning.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the needed improvements in the levees that were not done. Does anyone know if the imporvements would have enabled the levees to handle a cat 4 or 5 hurricane?

According to reports on NBC, a decision was made several years ago to build levees to withstand cat 3 despite a history of cat 4 and 5 storms in the Gulf. According to one interview with a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, this was decided according to a "cost/benefit analysis." In other words, they knew NO was vulnerable to cat 5 storms but decided the cost of building strong levees outweighed the benefit of protecting a city of 480,000 people that happens also to be the second biggest port in the country.

Very unlikely, even if the improvements had been made. It's kind of difficult to design a levee to withstand a Cat 5. A cat 4, though just as difficult, would have been a little more easy to do.


did some google searching and it appears that the improvements were to rebuild the levees that were sinking and not to upgrade them to handle a cat 4 hurricane.


"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don’t get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can’t stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn’t that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can’t raise them."

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html

Maybe we could even get some real plans together to actually respond to disasters quickly in the future.
I thought we did that after 9-11, and I fail to see why this should be treated any differently than if it were a terrorist attack, and terrorists could easily have caused this exact same situation in NO, except it'd be worse, because no one would have been evacuated because no one would have had the advanced warning of the hurricane.

Does nobody actually read anyone's posts? I post this back on page 2..

CLICK (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)

"Didn't give people time."

Congress was in emergency session less than 48 hours after Terry Shiavo's feeding tube was removed. How many days has it been since this disaster hit?

Remind me again about that "culture of life," won't you?

Three days now and Yesterday the Senate passed a 10.1 Billion Aide! Today, the House was going to do the same thing.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that Congress has gotten to work on this.

Three days now and Yesterday the Senate passed a 10.1 Billion Aide! Today, the House was going to do the same thing.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that Congress has gotten to work on this.

I suppose better late than never huh. :rolleyes:

There is no conspiracy here, it's all over the news. :rolleyes:

First I've heard of it so no it hasn't been all over the news or maybe because it is ludicrous, it is getting ignored by some as it should.

the bush admin are sitting on their asses all day doing nothing to help. I hope they get their just deserts in the future. Yet one more disgrace to add to the list.

First I've heard of it so no it hasn't been all over the news or maybe because it is ludicrous, it is getting ignored by some as it should.

Well it's all over the news here and was all over CNN lastnight... maybe if you tore yourself away from Fox "news" for a few minutes you'd have known. It's all over the net too.

SEE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)

It's not so much could New Orleans or any coastal city handle a Cat5 storm, the answer is probably no. The question is, could the massive floods have been avoided if the work had been done to them that Bush cut the funds for. That has been the real question throughout this thread. (I started the thread, I have a pretty good idea where I was going with it)..LOL :p
It's always a question of money. If the funds were unlimited I'm sure the answer is 'yes, the disaster could have been avoided'. But money isn't unlimited. Now the question becomes, 'Is it feasible to protect against a Cat 5 storm?". Maybe the answer is 'No'. Maybe the expense is just so great that the treasury can't bear the burden.

I don't know what the rational was for reducing funds for SELA. Maybe it was the realization that no rational amount of money would protect the city. Maybe it was diverted to other projects. But it doesn't appear that the state of Louisiana, nor the City of New Orleans tried to augment the dwindling federal funding. That doesn't surprise me, as local governments always seem to find ways of ignoring infrastructure until it's completely unsafe.

When I started this thread, all I wanted was an intelligent discussion on the cuts to the funding for protecting New Orleans from a natural disaster. I guess that was simply too much to ask for. By all means, hijack my thread with god and all unrelated topics.. Thanks! :rolleyes: :headbang:

And yet, you ignored the fact that it wasn't high on Clinton's list either since he low-balled it as well.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the needed improvements in the levees that were not done. Does anyone know if the imporvements would have enabled the levees to handle a cat 4 or 5 hurricane?

Depending on how it hit, it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference. Might've prevented some damage but I think it still would've been overruned.

Does nobody actually read anyone's posts? I post this back on page 2..

CLICK (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)
If you expect to herd cats, you'll be disappointed :).

And yet, you ignored the fact that it wasn't high on Clinton's list either since he low-balled it as well.

No, you've either ignored the whole thread or have chosen to jump in where it stands and didn't bother to actually read the thread or you'd know the Clinton connection you're trying to make has already been debunked pages ago!

And yet, you ignored the fact that it wasn't high on Clinton's list either since he low-balled it as well.

Actually, no. He didn't. He provided more funding for the levees between 1995-2000 than the previous 15. The catefory 3 hurricane protections were built during those years.

financially poor people are also politically poor,
they have no say in this government, or any other-
Democrat or Republican. face the facts.
N.O. most the poor people are black.
Oops.
Guess it was a racial issue from the beginning.

Well it's all over the news here and was all over CNN lastnight... maybe if you tore yourself away from Fox "news" for a few minutes you'd have known. It's all over the net too.

SEE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)
Stephistan, your continual linking to the same post is getting annoying.
Additionally, I fail to see how pointing out what any politician did wrong before the hurricane hit is important right now. Right now, our criticism, and our actions, need to focus on what's going on right now. It's too late to prevent any part of what happened in New Orleans. Right now we need to fix the problem.
Once the problem is fixed and taken care of (and it's no where near that point yet), then we can go back and look at what went wrong before hand so we can come around and fix similar problems to avoid similar scenarios in the future. But bickering about pre-hurricane prep now isn't going to fix the very real post-hurricane aftermath that we're currently stuck with, not now anyway.

It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.


And so I got to thinking, reading through all of this, "How much of the business of building levees is really the federal government's responsibility?" Afterall, we're talking about taking tax money from Americans (all of us) and using it so that some people in LA can live under sea level. It seems to me that most of that burden should be carried by the city and state.

But then I read the quoted post above. And NO gave us Mardi Gras, Bourbon St, and the French Quarter. It personally gave me many nights I only vaguely remember ;) , though I'm sure I had fun. Its a national treasure.
God I hope they rebuild.

I thought we did that after 9-11, and I fail to see why this should be treated any differently than if it were a terrorist attack, and terrorists could easily have caused this exact same situation in NO, except it'd be worse, because no one would have been evacuated because no one would have had the advanced warning of the hurricane.
OK! I think everyone gets your point here. I also thought we were making plans after 9-11, but obviously they were inadequate. I don't think anyone has been sitting around saying "Eh, screw it...if it ain't terrorism, let 'em drown and starve." I'm sure even the dreaded George Bush means well, but good intentions don't fix things.

It should be treated differently than a terrorist attack because it is different than a terrorist attack. Terrorists can be stopped from blowing up the levees by putting lots of troops with guns on the levees to protect them. Unfortunately troops with guns can't stop hurricanes.

Stephistan, your continual linking to the same post is getting annoying.

I keep linking to it because Corneliu refuses to address it, as it proves his argument wrong.

Corneliu, please go back to page two of this thread and read my post. Better yet, just click here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)

And why don't you actually stop placing all the blame on the Bush administration since it wasn't entirely all of his fault. Something I've repeatedly said and something that you continuously refuse to acknowledge.

Until you do, I'm ignoring your sources! Everyone is to blame. The City of New Olreans could've done this without Federal Help. Did they? No! Why? People didn't want higher taxes even though it would've benefited them.

No one person is to blame for this just like no one branch of government is to blame for this. Everyone is to blame for this and its about time you realize that.

Does nobody actually read anyone's posts? I post this back on page 2..

CLICK (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)


I generally don't read long articles that are in posts. what I do is qoute excerpts that pretain to the discusion and then provide a link back to the entire article.

Here's and interesting comment from the article:

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:

"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html

Katrina was a cat 4 so it's probably debateable as to if the levees would have held even if the needed improvements had been accomplished.

OK! I think everyone gets your point here. I also thought we were making plans after 9-11, but obviously they were inadequate. I don't think anyone has been sitting around saying "Eh, screw it...if it ain't terrorism, let 'em drown and starve." I'm sure even the dreaded George Bush means well, but good intentions don't fix things.

It should be treated differently than a terrorist attack because it is different than a terrorist attack. Terrorists can be stopped from blowing up the levees by putting lots of troops with guns on the levees to protect them. Unfortunately troops with guns can't stop hurricanes.
I'm not talking about preventative measures. I'm talking about the response. We all know damned well that if Bush was concerned with his approval rating at all, and the media had already labeled this as an act of terrorism, the support would've been there essentially immediately. I'm not suggesting that they are not responding as if it is not important, however, the response would have likely been a lot quicker if it were an act of terrorism that caused the same problem.

And if the response to an act of terrorism that caused this much damage wasn't any quicker than the sluggish response to the hurricane, then it's time to re-evaulate whatever lessons we supposedly learned in the wake of 9-11.

And why don't you actually stop placing all the blame on the Bush administration since it wasn't entirely all of his fault.

I agree, Bush has no control over the weather. There, I said it.

Now, I have to go start dinner.

Have a nice evening everyone. :)

I suppose better late than never huh. :rolleyes:

I have to agree with you there Stephistan.

For some people, it seems, the buck never stops.

Only one person is curently president.

Well it's all over the news here and was all over CNN lastnight... maybe if you tore yourself away from Fox "news" for a few minutes you'd have known. It's all over the net too.

SEE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)

OHH!! CNN! Oh brother! Guess what? It isn't even worth mentioning! Everyone k nows that is ludicrous. Things like that should just get flat out ignored.

Good. I'm glad I didn't hear of it because it is just really really dumb.

And so I got to thinking, reading through all of this, "How much of the business of building levees is really the federal government's responsibility?" Afterall, we're talking about taking tax money from Americans (all of us) and using it so that some people in LA can live under sea level. It seems to me that most of that burden should be carried by the city and state.

But then I read the quoted post above. And NO gave us Mardi Gras, Bourbon St, and the French Quarter. It personally gave me many nights I only vaguely remember ;) , though I'm sure I had fun. Its a national treasure.
God I hope they rebuild.

Those are all good points. We probably should also note that New Orleans is one of the two largest ports in the U.S. and almost all the oil, foreign and domestic for the eastern seabard flows through it or gets refined into gasoline there. It's entirely possible that New Orleans is the single most strategic city in the United States. Period. I think it's unfathomable that with better than two days warning(yes, it was a category 1, but models predicted it's increase over the next two days), Homeland Security and FEMA weren't better prepared.

Does nobody actually read anyone's posts? I post this back on page 2..

CLICK (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9567826&postcount=27)

Yup, it's all there, sorry. But I got the idea from the tv interview that the specific cat 3 or cat 5 argument had been going on even longer.

Maybe it was like:

Engineers: "We need more money and bigger levees!!"

Pols: "Feh, you engineers always want more money and bigger stuff."

Engineers: "But the city is sinking!!"

Pols: "So is Venice. It adds to the ambience. We'll deal with it next term."

etc for years and years until it all came home to roost.

Actually, no. He didn't. He provided more funding for the levees between 1995-2000 than the previous 15. The catefory 3 hurricane protections were built during those years.

Right but to really protect it, would've been to expensive to actually built! Therefore, there wasn't any more funding to build it and the cost to actually build something like that.

Right but to really protect it, would've been to expensive to actually built! Therefore, there wasn't any more funding to build it and the cost to actually build something like that.

Seems like it would've been cheaper than what we have to pay now. :p

Right but to really protect it, would've been to expensive to actually built! Therefore, there wasn't any more funding to build it and the cost to actually build something like that.
Okay, so your argument is that Clinton didn't spend enough and shares the blame. What is being pointed out is Bush cut Clinton's already not enough spending on the levies. So, if Clinton didn't spend enough, and Bush-who is currently president spent even less, then doesn't that at least place a fair bit more blame at his door?

Those are all good points. We probably should also note that New Orleans is one of the two largest ports in the U.S. and almost all the oil, foreign and domestic for the eastern seabard flows through it or gets refined into gasoline there. It's entirely possible that New Orleans is the single most strategic city in the United States. Period. I think it's unfathomable that with better than two days warning(yes, it was a category 1, but models predicted it's increase over the next two days), Homeland Security and FEMA weren't better prepared.
I don't know that there is a whole lot of shipping that goes through New Orleans that Houston and Mobile can't handle. We've got to start using the Tombigbee waterway for something useful.

Seems like it would've been cheaper than what we have to pay now. :p
Hindsight is pretty clear, isn't it?

I don't know that there is a whole lot of shipping that goes through New Orleans that Houston and Mobile can't handle. We've got to start using the Tombigbee waterway for something useful.

There are definite advantages to centralization. But you're right. There are also advantages to decentralization. As we are discovering. :(

Hindsight is pretty clear, isn't it?

Actually, I would describe it as ignored foresight. Because somebody obviously saw it coming. :p

I'm not talking about preventative measures. I'm talking about the response. We all know damned well that if Bush was concerned with his approval rating at all, and the media had already labeled this as an act of terrorism, the support would've been there essentially immediately. I'm not suggesting that they are not responding as if it is not important, however, the response would have likely been a lot quicker if it were an act of terrorism that caused the same problem.

And if the response to an act of terrorism that caused this much damage wasn't any quicker than the sluggish response to the hurricane, then it's time to re-evaulate whatever lessons we supposedly learned in the wake of 9-11.
Honestly, the response would probably have been pretty effective if people actually prepared themselves as outlined here:
http://www.ready.gov/
3 days of food water and supplies would have certainly made a world of difference.

Okay, so your argument is that Clinton didn't spend enough and shares the blame. What is being pointed out is Bush cut Clinton's already not enough spending on the levies. So, if Clinton didn't spend enough, and Bush-who is currently president spent even less, then doesn't that at least place a fair bit more blame at his door?

Go back and read the little excerpt I quoted! "Both Bush and Clinton administrations low-balled the needs."

I don't blame one or the other but actually BOTH! I also blame the state of LA as well as the City of NO itself for not putting as much effort as possible.

I think that's just the problem; people are too dependent on the government. They would rather sit there and cry for help instead of organizing themselves or wading through "waist deep" water to get out. It's really pathetic. I have very little sympathy for the able-bodied people who are still there. And I don't like the idea of donating money to help people who are shooting at medics.

Seems like it would've been cheaper than what we have to pay now. :p

You are probably correct in this assessment however, politicians don't look at the future. They look at the here and now. If they really did care about the future, they would've allocated that money to build those levees but I don't think it would've done them that much good in the long run. Even if the Army Corp of Engineers got what they wanted, it still would've taken years to build.

I'm not talking about preventative measures. I'm talking about the response. We all know damned well that if Bush was concerned with his approval rating at all, and the media had already labeled this as an act of terrorism, the support would've been there essentially immediately. I'm not suggesting that they are not responding as if it is not important, however, the response would have likely been a lot quicker if it were an act of terrorism that caused the same problem.

And if the response to an act of terrorism that caused this much damage wasn't any quicker than the sluggish response to the hurricane, then it's time to re-evaulate whatever lessons we supposedly learned in the wake of 9-11.


There's a big difference between 9/11 and Katrina. Katrina devastated the southern coasts of three states and has left many hundreds of thousands of people homeless while the attack on the WTC caused destruction that was quite localized to one part, which was primarily a business district, of one city.

Honestly, the response would probably have been pretty effective if people actually prepared themselves as outlined here:
http://www.ready.gov/
3 days of food water and supplies would have certainly made a world of difference.

But that would involve measures of personal responsibility, a major problem in this country. Much easier to blame the Gov't.

Actually, I would describe it as ignored foresight. Because somebody obviously saw it coming. :p
Like I said earlier, it's a big trade-off. Weighing the chances of a disaster against the costs of protecting against it is a tough decision. Lots of money for a remotely possible disaster? Most pols don't have the balls to stick up for that. They prefer cash payments to their constituents.

I think that's just the problem; people are too dependent on the government. They would rather sit there and cry for help instead of organizing themselves or wading through "waist deep" water to get out. It's really pathetic. I have very little sympathy for the able-bodied people who are still there. And I don't like the idea of donating money to help people who are shooting at medics.

hm.

The water is 25 ft. deep in some places. A bit more then waist deep.

You'd have to carry food and water, since there may or may not be other places to find it along the way.

You'd have to carry a weapon, since you'd probably be shot at at least once.

Then you'd have to find medicine, in case the waters get in a cut and cause major infections.

At the end of the day (s), you'd have to find somewhere that's NOT damaged to sleep. Dry, sheltered, safe... not too common in a flooded city.

I think that's just the problem; people are too dependent on the government. They would rather sit there and cry for help instead of organizing themselves or wading through "waist deep" water to get out. It's really pathetic. I have very little sympathy for the able-bodied people who are still there. And I don't like the idea of donating money to help people who are shooting at medics.
You're already paying for those losers. They are wholly supported by you tax dollars. You SHOULD donate to help the others that evacuated when told and have suffered real losses of their own.

There's a big difference between 9/11 and Katrina. Katrina devastated the southern coasts of three states and has left many hundreds of thousands of people homeless while the attack on the WTC caused destruction that was quite localized to one part, which was primarily a business district, of one city.
...the biggest problems are in New Orleans. Outside of New Orleans, while the situation is horrible, it's not much worse than the hurricanes that the people in that area are used to. And in fact, if it weren't for the breaking of the levees and the flooding of New Orleans, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize the government for their sluggish response, but we're talking about an ENIRE CITY (far worse than 9-11, FAR worse) that is going to be inhabitable for up to 16 weeks.

I think that's just the problem; people are too dependent on the government. They would rather sit there and cry for help instead of organizing themselves or wading through "waist deep" water to get out. It's really pathetic. I have very little sympathy for the able-bodied people who are still there. And I don't like the idea of donating money to help people who are shooting at medics.
No, no, no, you miss the point. Money you donate will be spent to buy kevlar vests for the medics!

Those are all good points. We probably should also note that New Orleans is one of the two largest ports in the U.S. and almost all the oil, foreign and domestic for the eastern seabard flows through it or gets refined into gasoline there. It's entirely possible that New Orleans is the single most strategic city in the United States. Period. I think it's unfathomable that with better than two days warning(yes, it was a category 1, but models predicted it's increase over the next two days), Homeland Security and FEMA weren't better prepared.

Don't get me wrong, I agree it is important as a port, and that part of the country not only is massively involved in oil/gas but also quite a bit of chemical industry as well. But the levees weren't just there for those reasons (and the number of people needed to support them). They were there because people simply wanted to live in that city (under sea level). I realize there is no good way to determine a % of value on it, but the federal government shouldn't be the only ones responsible. If people want to live in a precarious location (another example being on a major faultline), the people themselves (and their local governments) should bear the ultimate responsibility for their own protection and safety. Assistance from the feds should be considered as having the goal of protecting national interests (like pipelines and port access).

I have to say, I've been pretty appalled by what I seen passing as aid to the areas. I wonder if it is the media simply showing us the worst sometimes, I doubt it though. :(

...the biggest problems are in New Orleans. Outside of New Orleans, while the situation is horrible, it's not much worse than the hurricanes that the people in that area are used to. And in fact, if it weren't for the breaking of the levees and the flooding of New Orleans, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize the government for their sluggish response, but we're talking about an ENIRE CITY (far worse than 9-11, FAR worse) that is going to be inhabitable for up to 16 weeks.
A good point. I've heard some people disparaging Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans for complaining about the lack of help & contrasting his performance with Giuliani in New York who was a go-getter & made things happen. Yes, the major difference here is that Nagin has no infrastructure left to work with while Giuliani had many more resources in a much larger city that remained mostly intact.

You are probably correct in this assessment however, politicians don't look at the future. They look at the here and now. If they really did care about the future, they would've allocated that money to build those levees but I don't think it would've done them that much good in the long run. Even if the Army Corp of Engineers got what they wanted, it still would've taken years to build.

The worst of the damage was caused by two breaks in the wall. I know for certain (more specifically, the governor of Louisiana said so) that one of those breaks occured at a point scheduled to be repaired by now that never got done. I'm not sure about the other. But if even one of those breaks didn't happen, the money, time and lives saved would have been incredible.

Clinton approved more spending on those levees and flood walls than had been spent in the previous 15 years. Should he have approved more? Probably. But that isn't entirely his decision, is it?

Under the Bush administration, the real culprits(Congress) had a free hand to slash the funding that should have finished Clinton's project. Bush had other priorities and I don't think he knew or cared where the money came from. A more rational and security minded president would have considered the strategic value of New Orleans. Like I said, it's possibly the most important city in the U.S. And in a security-minded age, LESS money was being spend on it's safety rather than more.

A considerable number of elected and unelected officials from September 11th, 2001 onward should be slapped for not considering that beforehand.

You're already paying for those losers. They are wholly supported by you tax dollars. You SHOULD donate to help the others that evacuated when told and have suffered real losses of their own.


Can you say insurance? I'm not completly unsympathetic to their plight, but you owe it to yourself to be aware of the risks of living in certain areas.

...the biggest problems are in New Orleans. Outside of New Orleans, while the situation is horrible, it's not much worse than the hurricanes that the people in that area are used to. And in fact, if it weren't for the breaking of the levees and the flooding of New Orleans, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize the government for their sluggish response, but we're talking about an ENIRE CITY (far worse than 9-11, FAR worse) that is going to be inhabitable for up to 16 weeks.


Had the levees held, the people would most likely be in the process of returning to their homes or already have returned to their homes.

This disaster may be the hit in the head by a 2x4 that the nation needs. The destruction in NO could have been much, much worse if Katrina had kept heading towards NO and remained a cat 5.

The rebuilding effort will hopefully include vast imporvements to the levee system and also to the barrier islands and river delta that acts as a cushion against storms.

Can you say insurance? I'm not completly unsympathetic to their plight, but you owe it to yourself to be aware of the risks of living in certain areas.
Flood insurance is an expensive thing. Cost to benefit plays into the decision to buy it. We've always refused because the risk is low. Insurance won't cover the work being done by the Red Cross and others, though. The 'immediate' aid that victims get is at no cost to them, those of us with electricity, running water, and a fridge full of food pay for that.

That's my point. If the levees held and there was no flooding, this wouldn't be near as big of an ordeal, and federal government involvement wouldn't be near as important. However, that's not the case, and the levees did break. The federal government should have been able to respond essentially immediately, as if it were terrorists that broke the levees.

Had the levees held, the people would most likely be in the process of returning to their homes or already have returned to their homes.

This disaster may be the hit in the head by a 2x4 that the nation needs. The destruction in NO could have been much, much worse if Katrina had kept heading towards NO and remained a cat 5.

The rebuilding effort will hopefully include vast imporvements to the levee system and also to the barrier islands and river delta that acts as a cushion against storms.
Nah, there will be a lot of lip service and maybe some investigations into the cause and also the relief operations, but there won't be any real money dedicated to improvements. Legislators from Nebraska won't vote money to protect Floridians from hurricane damage. It doesn't build any capital with their constituents.

That's my point. If the levees held and there was no flooding, this wouldn't be near as big of an ordeal, and federal government involvement wouldn't be near as important. However, that's not the case, and the levees did break. The federal government should have been able to respond essentially immediately, as if it were terrorists that broke the levees.

I agree. New Orleans would have been a juicier target for terrorists than New York if they weren't trying to take out a symbolic landmark as well. This is going to devastate the entire country. :(

The worst of the damage was caused by two breaks in the wall. I know for certain (more specifically, the governor of Louisiana said so) that one of those breaks occured at a point scheduled to be repaired by now that never got done. I'm not sure about the other. But if even one of those breaks didn't happen, the money, time and lives saved would have been incredible.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

Clinton approved more spending on those levees and flood walls than had been spent in the previous 15 years. Should he have approved more? Probably. But that isn't entirely his decision, is it?

To some extent it was and to another extent it wasn't. Also, LA could've done some of the funding and done it themselves without waiting on the Federal Government. The state didn't do that.

Under the Bush administration, the real culprits(Congress) had a free hand to slash the funding that should have finished Clinton's project.

In this case, yes, congress is the real culprit and the one that should be blamed more than Bush. However, everyone blames the leader and not the legislature forgetting the fact that the Legislature actually runs the country!

Bush had other priorities and I don't think he knew or cared where the money came from. A more rational and security minded president would have considered the strategic value of New Orleans. Like I said, it's possibly the most important city in the U.S. And in a security-minded age, LESS money was being spend on it's safety rather than more.

Ok, I can actually by what you are saying here. But one thing a president also has to look at is the cost of doing such a project. Does the cost actually out weigh the benefits? Would the better improved levees prevent this? Probably not but it could've restricted the damage. So half the money would've been wasted instead of all of it. In someways, I do blame Bush but NOT to the extent as most people are on this board. Unlike others, I look at all the facts and I try not to let my emotions run wild with accusations.

A considerable number of elected and unelected officials from September 11th, 2001 onward should be slapped for not considering that beforehand.

I second the motion.

Go back and read the little excerpt I quoted! "Both Bush and Clinton administrations low-balled the needs."

I don't blame one or the other but actually BOTH! I also blame the state of LA as well as the City of NO itself for not putting as much effort as possible.
Reread what I said a little more carefully.

Here are some key points:
Bush is currently president, and has been for the last five years.
Clinton spent more than those before him and Bush cut that spending.

Now again, doesn't this adjust the level of blame? Certainly we can go all the way back and wave the finger at the people who decided to build below sea level next to the sea, but there is one person in charge now, who's been in charge for a while, who has done less than those before him and who has had a party aligned legislature. He's in charge now and has been, and he's made decisions regarding this that have fallen shorter than measures you admit already fell short. Now. Don't you think that a large portion of the responsability has to lie on his shoulders, or does the buck never stop?

Flood insurance is an expensive thing. Cost to benefit plays into the decision to buy it. We've always refused because the risk is low. Insurance won't cover the work being done by the Red Cross and others, though. The 'immediate' aid that victims get is at no cost to them, those of us with electricity, running water, and a fridge full of food pay for that.

That's no lie on the costs. Also, if a flood does happen, they start canceling policies afterwards on the claim of black mold......

That's my point. If the levees held and there was no flooding, this wouldn't be near as big of an ordeal, and federal government involvement wouldn't be near as important. However, that's not the case, and the levees did break. The federal government should have been able to respond essentially immediately, as if it were terrorists that broke the levees.

Kinda hard to get there when roads are flooded or washed out. It would've taken time to get workers to the affected areas because of it. They are getting there now and that is a good thing.

Reread what I said a little more carefully.

Here are some key points:
Bush is currently president, and has been for the last five years.
Clinton spent more than those before him and Bush cut that spending.

Now again, doesn't this adjust the level of blame? Certainly we can go all the way back and wave the finger at the people who decided to build below sea level next to the sea, but there is one person in charge now, who's been in charge for a while, who has done less than those before him and who has had a party aligned legislature. He's in charge now and has been, and he's made decisions regarding this that have fallen shorter than measures you admit already fell short. Now. Don't you think that a large portion of the responsability has to lie on his shoulders, or does the buck never stop?

Oh come one now. Don't you know the game?

If good things happen with a democratic President its because of the previous republican President.
If bad things happen with a republican President, its because of the previous democratic President.

It didn't take long for Clinton to be brought up didn't it......

Kinda hard to get there when roads are flooded or washed out. It would've taken time to get workers to the affected areas because of it. They are getting there now and that is a good thing.

The levies were a known issue. Why were the boys put on alert when the storm was landing?

Reread what I said a little more carefully.

Here are some key points:
Bush is currently president, and has been for the last five years.
Clinton spent more than those before him and Bush cut that spending.

On something that would've been way to expensive. However, we are now going into the realm of hindsight. Not a very good place to go with something like this. Who would've thought that a massive Category 4 storm would've flooded the city when infact, those levees held back water from other massive storms?

Now again, doesn't this adjust the level of blame?

No it doesn't! I already said that Bush was partly responsible as is everyone else that was involved with this project, including Clinton. He might've done the funding but the funding didn't go far enough.

Certainly we can go all the way back and wave the finger at the people who decided to build below sea level next to the sea, but there is one person in charge now, who's been in charge for a while, who has done less than those before him and who has had a party aligned legislature. He's in charge now and has been, and he's made decisions regarding this that have fallen shorter than measures you admit already fell short. Now. Don't you think that a large portion of the responsability has to lie on his shoulders, or does the buck never stop?

Part of the responsibility is his however, not the largest portion of the responsibility is his. We could also blame the Governor of LA for not protecting New Orleans better as well as the Mayor of NO for not doing all that is possible to protect the city. No one person deserves the majority of the blame. Everyone is to blame for what happened with New Orleans.

Oh come one now. Don't you know the game?

If good things happen with a democratic President its because of the previous republican President.
If bad things happen with a republican President, its because of the previous democratic President.

It didn't take long for Clinton to be brought up didn't it......

All I did was quote a news article from a non-conservative source. It is more from the AP than the Intelligencer since the author is an AP Political Writer.

Slightly off the political topic, as I am English and have opinions that are biased but not fully informed to air here. But I have to say that I am horrified and distressed to see the horrors unfolding on my television screen over the last days. How is it that there are still thousands of people waiting to be evacuated in squalid and shameful conditions? people are dying in wheelchairs for want of basic mediction and sustenance...I saw a 95 year old lady being transported on a luggage trolly and placed in the back of a flatbead truck to be evacuated from a hospice. Patients in hospitals being treated in the car parks.....I can go on and on with the things that caused me anger, enough anger to shout at my TV. How could the worlds most powerful nation not help its most vulnerable citizens? How can people still be waiting for WATER!! WATER for god sake...not much to ask is it? I am so sorry for all those involved. My prayers are with those poor souls..and as for this being a judgement of gods, how dare anyone who claims to be a Christian say that they speak for God.

The levies were a known issue. Why were the boys put on alert when the storm was landing?

Because they wanted to keep the levees from breaking. Unfortunately, they did break as well as the pumps failing didn't help matters much either. Hopefully, everyone got a wakeup call and we can make sure that this doesn't happen again.

This is depressing.

Natural disasters are a part of life on Earth. There's no guarantee that being prepared will save you, but there's that old saying about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. It's just common sense, and the lack of it -- and watching everybody point fingers at everybody else instead of figuring out how to do better now and next time -- is just getting me down.

All I did was quote a news article from a non-conservative source. It is more from the AP than the Intelligencer since the author is an AP Political Writer.

It's an old game my boy.

Even during Clintons time, the good economy was argued to have been the result of Regan......

The levies were a known issue. Why were the boys put on alert when the storm was landing?
So far as I know, National Guard are always put on alert when there is a major tropical storm and/or hurricane on the way...as when there's the possibility of a flood...etc, etc, etc.

It's an old game my boy.

Even during Clintons time, the good economy was argued to have been the result of Regan......

I'll agree with you there! It is an old game.

As to your last statement, I'm not going to say one way or the other because this is about New Orleans.

This is depressing.

Natural disasters are a part of life on Earth. There's no guarantee that being prepared will save you, but there's that old saying about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. It's just common sense, and the lack of it -- and watching everybody point fingers at everybody else instead of figuring out how to do better now and next time -- is just getting me down.

Such is human nature.

Remember the collapsed overpass that killed all those people when Loma Preta went?

It was known that it would happen. The retired civil engineer of San Francisco(father-in-law of a coworker at the time) bitched he had told people about it for 20 years.

They kept tossing the dice for luck and it eventually bite them.

The levies were known but they were gambling that a hurricane like Katrina wouldn't happen. After all the last one was in 1968.

Don't have an answer for that one. Well maybe a few sack beatings. ;)

So far as I know, National Guard are always put on alert when there is a major tropical storm and/or hurricane on the way...as when there's the possibility of a flood...etc, etc, etc.

Well the feds probably could have done things better. When they saw how big that bitch was going to be, they could have had plans rolling.

Then again they might have. Where was the Truman at?

Such is human nature.

Remember the collapsed overpass that killed all those people when Loma Preta went?

It was known that it would happen. The retired civil engineer of San Francisco(father-in-law of a coworker at the time) bitched he had told people about it for 20 years.

They kept tossing the dice for luck and it eventually bite them.

The levies were known but they were gambling that a hurricane like Katrina wouldn't happen. After all the last one was in 1968.

Don't have an answer for that one. Well maybe a few sack beatings. ;)


Yeah, you're right, but it never seems to get less frustrating -- also human nature or am I just too demanding? ;)

Natural disaster is one of my top 3 least resented possible ways to die, because I think it seems appropriate somehow, but dying because some other moron fucked up is not on that list.

5PM!! Quittin' time! Suddenly, I feel .2% less depressed.

Well the feds probably could have done things better. When they saw how big that bitch was going to be, they could have had plans rolling.

Then again they might have. Where was the Truman at?
...sigh. The size of the hurricane is not even close to any of the reasons I am upset with the government's response. The fact of the matter is, people chose whether or not to risk their life with the hurricane, and while the hurricane is dangerous, once it has passed, there's not significant nor urgent need for assistance. Sure, people end up out of house and out of food and supplies, but not even close to on the scale of what we're seeing here.

No one anticipated the levees to break. And the breaking of the levees is what has made this situation so bad. Nothing less, nothing more. People are now stuck in their homes, and it will be as long as 16 weeks according to conservative estimates before the city is habitable again.

I just figured that I'd say that it isn't time to look at politics. There are tens of thousands of people who need help down in New Orleans and Alabama and Mississippi right now, and blaming the government (Repulicans or Democrats, present and past) will do no good to those down there.

I know we have to start looking at ways to prevent this, right now. We need to start searching. But, we also need to start reacting to the fact that we have thousands (not official, though) dead and tens of thousands who need a direction and a helping, loving hand.

I don't really care if you're Democrat or Republican, we're all Americans, and most of all we're all humans. Let's focus on that.

I just figured that I'd say that it isn't time to look at politics. There are tens of thousands of people who need help down in New Orleans and Alabama and Mississippi right now, and blaming the government (Repulicans or Democrats, present and past) will do no good to those down there.

I know we have to start looking at ways to prevent this, right now. We need to start searching. But, we also need to start reacting to the fact that we have thousands (not official, though) dead and tens of thousands who need a direction and a helping, loving hand.

I don't really care if you're Democrat or Republican, we're all Americans, and most of all we're all humans. Let's focus on that.

Well if you saw the Foamy the Squirrl report. It will be a week and then everybody won't give a shit and all they will do is sit around and bitch about the cost of Gas. ;)

It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there.
I suggest you read this:
Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, recently warned Orlando, Florida, that it was courting natural disaster by allowing gay pride flags to be flown along its streets.

"A condition like this will bring about ...earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor,"Robertson said.

Apparently he was referring to his belief that the presence of openly gay people incurs divine wrath and that God acts through geological and meteorological events to destroy municipalities that permit gay people the same civil liberties as others. (Robertson also warned Orlando about terrorist bombs, suggesting the possibility that God may also employ terrorists.)

Before Pat and his Christian cronies get too carried away promulgating the idea that natural disasters are prompted by people who displease God, they should take a hard look at the data.

Take tornadoes. Every state (except Alaska) has them--some only one or two a year, dozens in others.

Gay people are in every state (even Alaska). According to Pat's hypothesis, there should be more gay people in states that have more tornadoes. But are there? Nope. In fact, there's no correlation at all between the number of gay folks (as estimated by the number of gay political organizations, support groups, bookstores, radio programs, and circuit parties) and the annual tornado count =AE =3D .04, p =3D .78 for you statisticians).

So much for the "God hates gays" theory.

God seems almost neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. I say "almost" because if we look at the density of gay groups relative to the population as a whole, there is a small but statistically significant (p .05) correlation
with the occurrence of tornadoes. And it's a negative correlation =AE =3D -.28).

For those of you who haven't used statistics since 1973, that means that a high concentration of gay organizations actually protects against tornadoes. A state with the population of, say, Alabama could avert two tornadoes a year merely by doubling the number of gay organizations in the state. (Tough choice for Alabama's civil defense strategists.)

Although God may not care about sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for religious affiliation. If the underlying tenet of Pat's postulate is true--that God wipes out offensive folks via natural disasters --then perhaps we can find some evidence of who's on God's hit list.

Jews are off the hook here: there's no correlation between numbers of Jews and frequency of tornadoes. Ditto for Catholics. But when it comes to Protestants, there's a highly significant correlation of .71.

This means that fully half the state-to-state variation in tornado frequency can be accounted for by the presence of Protestants. And the chance that this association is merely coincidental is only one in 10,000.

Protestants, of course, come in many flavors--we were able to find statistics for Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Others. Lutherans don't seem to be a problem--no correlation with tornadoes. There's a modest correlation
=AE =3D .52, p =3D .0001) between Methodists and tornadoes.

But Baptists and Others share the prize:both groups show a definite correlation with tornado frequency =AE =3D .68, p =3D .0001). This means that Texas could cut its average of 139 tornadoes per year in half by sending
a few hundred thousand Baptists elsewhere (Alaska maybe?).

What, you are probably asking yourself, about gay Protestants? An examination of the numbers of gay religious groups (mostly Protestant) reveals no significant relationship with tornadoes. Perhaps even Protestants are less
repugnant to God if they're gay.

And that brings up another point--the futility of trying to save the world by getting gay people to accept Jesus. It looks from our numbers as if the frequency of natural disasters might be more effectively reduced by encouraging
Protestants to be gay.

Gay people have been falsely blamed for disasters ever since Sodom was destroyed by fire and brimstone. (We have been unable to find any statistics on disasters involving brimstone). According to a reliable source, the destruction of Sodom was indeed an act of God. (see Genesis 19:13) It's destruction was perpetrated because the citizens thereof were, according to the same source (see Ezekiel 16:49-50) "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned [and] did not help the poor and needy"--not because they were gay.

Now Pat would have us believe that gays are the cause of tornadoes (as well as earthquakes, meteors, and even terrorist bombs) in utter disregard for evidence showing that Baptists are much more likely to cause them.

I say "Kudos!" to Orlando. Despite Robertson's warning that Orlando is "right in the way of some serious hurricanes" (hardly a revelation), note that it was not struck by the very destructive Hurricane Andrew a few years ago. And amid the recent conflagrations (that's fires) in central Florida, which occurred just after Pat sounded his alarm, Orlando was spared. Keep those flags waving!

As any statistician will tell you, of course, correlation doesn't prove causation. Protestants causing tornadoes by angering God isn't the only explanation for these data. It could be that Baptists and Other Protestants purposely flock to states that have lots of tornadoes (no, we haven't checked for a correlation between IQ and religious affiliation).

But if Pat and his Christian crew insist that natural disasters are brought on by people who offend God, let the data show who those people are.


Janis Walworth July 16, 1998 - Sources:
Tornado Occurrence by State, 1962-1991
1990 Churches and Church Membership;
Population by State, 1990 US Census;
Gay & Lesbian Political Organizations,
Support Groups, and Religious Groups
from Gayellow Pages, National Edition, 1987.

Permission is given to all to reprint this article
in its entirety on a not-for-profit basis.

Slightly off the political topic, as I am English and have opinions that are biased but not fully informed to air here. But I have to say that I am horrified and distressed to see the horrors unfolding on my television screen over the last days. How is it that there are still thousands of people waiting to be evacuated in squalid and shameful conditions? people are dying in wheelchairs for want of basic mediction and sustenance...I saw a 95 year old lady being transported on a luggage trolly and placed in the back of a flatbead truck to be evacuated from a hospice. Patients in hospitals being treated in the car parks.....I can go on and on with the things that caused me anger, enough anger to shout at my TV. How could the worlds most powerful nation not help its most vulnerable citizens? How can people still be waiting for WATER!! WATER for god sake...not much to ask is it? I am so sorry for all those involved. My prayers are with those poor souls..and as for this being a judgement of gods, how dare anyone who claims to be a Christian say that they speak for God.

You are exactly on the topic and to the point. How can the world's greatest power be completely unable to respond to a disaster in less than a week? It is shameful and there should be repercussions throughout the government.

I suggest you read this:
Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, recently warned Orlando, Florida, that it was courting natural disaster by allowing gay pride flags to be flown along its streets.

*SNIP*



You might want to keep of your post. Whit is a super fundi. He will parrot the exact same thing another day.

You might want to keep of your post. Whit is a super fundi. He will parrot the exact same thing another day.
His ideas are disturbed and sick.

We're all shocked to see how unprepared we were for this disaster in many ways and at multiple levels. I'm not certain that anger is the appropriate response today, but we may find carelessness aplenty in the weeks to come.

If you had asked the mayor, the governor, the president a week ago whether they were prepared for the eventually of a CAT-5 in NOLA, they might have said "probably, we've done the best we can". Remember, disaster plans have been written and trained for for years. No one knows how well they will work in practice until the day comes. You can't perfectly anticipate every eventuality.

The plan was insufficient and resources at the local level were overwhelmed. The city of NO was far from prepared, the State was stretched too thin coping with widespread damage - if only NO were affected they might have coped. The federal government could easily have backed up the LA government if it weren't coping with a three-state epic disaster.

Bottom line, I think, is a plan that wasn't intended to cope with the scale of this mess. I don't think it was written to anticipate this, so in one sense it's not a failure. They planned on the Feds as a backup - not the primary responder.

I'm not sure you can spare the resources to be prepared for a disaster that may only strike once per hundred years, but we'll be having a national discussion about that soon.

Maybe the best we can expect is for the Feds to come in full force, but three days late. That's how long it takes to mobilize - that's just a fact when you consider the distances forces have to move - you can't move that kind of manpower and goods with a magic wand.

Due to climate change and a more populated planet (more people at risk due to changes in natural cycles), natural disasters now pose as great a threat as terrorism and war (possibly greater). The Socal System and its leadership has failed in both prevention and disaster relief (perhaps an unavoidable failure, but a failure by any other name...). Unless the Socal System is reformed there will more such disasters. The hurricane season is just begining, California sits on a gigantic fault line, est. The scope of the current tragidy is just being recognized, New Orleans has been completely destroyed and it is estimated that it could take six years to rebuild (if at all, the Speaker of the House said yesterday that he feels it makes "no sense" to rebuild the city).

There is a need to reform our international policies in regard to natural disasters as well (Katrina would bring a third world country to its knees). Not enough has been done to adjust to the new reality. When more people are killed/more property destroyed by natural events then by terrorism it is time to take another look at our policies.

A look at past failures in regard to international disasters: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/aid.html

It was not just gay parties. Remember that New Orleans was also the capital of Girls Gone Wild. It was also the US capital of debauchery, alcoholism, paganism, witchcraft, voodoo, and other forms of sin and debauchery.
San Francisco is the gay capital of America. But its sins have not yet reached the level of those in New Orleans. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their ilk should learn what from the deeds of New Orleans and what befell the people there.

I'm an occultist, and I'm this close to showing you that occultism works by teaching you to make this kind of insensitive, intollerant, bigoted, bloodthirsty remark! I'll not do it simply because I have some bit of respect for whoever ELSE that would be affected, something which you lack, you poor excuse for a human being!

10,000 have died in just Louisiana.

Yes. And you're happy about it, because you can't stand the thought of anyone being different from you and decide that God, a being that's evolved beyond my comprehension and beyond your lack of one is just as bigoted as you are - enough of a murderer to KILL ten thousand people, too, mind you. You're either joking, or a troll, or you're a moron that belongs with Fred Phelps and his ilk. I wonder if, when such a disaster happens to you, it'll be an act of God to punish you too, or if you, in your megalomaniacal self-righteousness, will also blame it on "fags", as your ilk calls them. You're a non-person!

I would imagine that the people who hate Bush won't believe him, and the people who support him will.
"I think it puts into question all of the Homeland Security and Northern Command planning for the last four years, because if we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?" said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

But I suppose Newt has a rep for being one of them radical, war-hating, fetus-aborting, Bush-hating leftists, right?

Or how about La Shawn Barber? "I’m ashamed of this country and its bumbling leadership today... Billions we spend, and all we have to show for it are four-day-old corpses on the side of the road, starving and injured people, and women and children being raped by animals who shouldn’t even be alive."

Just FYI, La Shawn voted for Bush, "because we thought he’d clean up the joint and restore the honor it once had."

I know we have to start looking at ways to prevent this, right now.
Do it after the rescue of the people and the patching of the levees.
Then ask the Dutch for help.

They experienced something similiar (including having a plan around to improve seadefences and not implementing it due to funds).
In 1953 they got hit by a hurricane. Only a class one in windspeed (89-90 miles/hour) but due to the wind direction and geography the storm surge was at least 15' which makes it a class 4 for the storm surge.
After they cleaned up the mess they decided that something like that would never happen again.
Their seadefences are now theorethically able to withstand the maximum stormsurge of a class 4 hurricane and (in some specific places) possibly the surge of a small class 5 (you cannot guarantee class 5 safety due to that class having no upper limit).

The dutch have 50 years of experience (since they got hit the last time) on how to keep water out of 26% of their nation (the part below sea level).
It would never hurt to ask for their know how on this to combine with what is known in the US.

The thing is that this kind of help will not be asked out of sheer arrogance. Something along the lines of: Why should we, the USofA, ask for help from them, we can solve this better then they ever can.
Mail your representative in congress, mail your gouvernor, mail the president, mail all your friends that they have to do this also and suggest that it might not be a bad idea to get this kind of help that might do the trick.

Everyone misses the point. Even had every crappy project that NO wanted had been overfunded and completed in half the time, it wouldn't have made any difference. Indeed, some levy breeches occured in areas that had been replaced, as per the 2002 plan. Funding, or lack thereof, would have made no difference as the Army Corp of engineers and State and Local agencies had colectively made the decision not to prepare for anything worse than a median Cat. 3. This hurricane was, predictably, far worse.

And if anyone is a douchebag politician in all this, lets start with that criminal of a mayor. Half the police force of NO has walked off the job. Yes, there is plenty of blame for everyone, but when the best plan a city can come up with is "lets hide in the superdome", a great deal of it should also be focused on the local level.

If you had asked the mayor, the governor, the president a week ago whether they were prepared for the eventually of a CAT-5 in NOLA, they might have said "probably, we've done the best we can".
Most likely the response from the mayor would have been: Hell no.
Can't do a guess about the governor but Bush would have ignored the question as irrelevant.


Remember, disaster plans have been written and trained for for years. No one knows how well they will work in practice until the day comes. You can't perfectly anticipate every eventuality.

Written but not acted on since there was no cash for the recommendations in them or fake exercises about this, or....


The plan was insufficient and resources at the local level were overwhelmed.

We don't know if the plan was insufficient since it never got of the ground in the first place.


The city of NO was far from prepared, the State was stretched too thin coping with widespread damage - if only NO were affected they might have coped. The federal government could easily have backed up the LA government if it weren't coping with a three-state epic disaster.

The federal government would be the one institution that should be capable of coping with a multi-state disaster, that is what it was created for in the first place.


Bottom line, I think, is a plan that wasn't intended to cope with the scale of this mess. I don't think it was written to anticipate this, so in one sense it's not a failure. They planned on the Feds as a backup - not the primary responder.

Problem being that the Fed ordered the first responders to go to Iraq with most of the gear that would be useful in a situation like this (but I wonder why they'd need all that equipment meant for wetlands, etc in Iraq).
This in turn places the responsibility of coping with what happened with the Fed.


I'm not sure you can spare the resources to be prepared for a disaster that may only strike once per hundred years, but we'll be having a national discussion about that soon.

If you have to spend 5 billion once + 25 million a year to save 10 billion in direct costs, untold billions in indirect costs (think higher fuel prices) and the deaths and pain you prevent that equation becomes very easy, just on the economics of the direct costs alone.


Maybe the best we can expect is for the Feds to come in full force, but three days late. That's how long it takes to mobilize - that's just a fact when you consider the distances forces have to move - you can't move that kind of manpower and goods with a magic wand.
The thing is that it doesn't take that long to mobilise. The Canadians for example got asked on tuesday to help, finished inventarising their disaster personell on wednesday and were putting them on planes that same evening (That is 1 day, make it 2 if they land on thursday). Were it not for Homeland Security they would have been there helping.

The problem at the moment is that no one knows what someone else is doing and doesn't talk to those someone elses, as long as that happens don't expect the Fed to be effective at aiding.

Everyone misses the point. Even had every crappy project that NO wanted had been overfunded and completed in half the time, it wouldn't have made any difference. Indeed, some levy breeches occured in areas that had been replaced, as per the 2002 plan. Funding, or lack thereof, would have made no difference as the Army Corp of engineers and State and Local agencies had colectively made the decision not to prepare for anything worse than a median Cat. 3. This hurricane was, predictably, far worse.

And if anyone is a douchebag politician in all this, lets start with that criminal of a mayor. Half the police force of NO has walked off the job. Yes, there is plenty of blame for everyone, but when the best plan a city can come up with is "lets hide in the superdome", a great deal of it should also be focused on the local level.
The mayor is the only person I've heard so far that hasn't spouted bullshit. And how is it his fault that 20% (yes 20%) of the police force didn't show up for work?

The mayor is the only person I've heard so far that hasn't spouted bullshit. And how is it his fault that 20% (yes 20%) of the police force didn't show up for work?

50%, not 20%.

And it's his fault because he's the mayor. Just like you would blame any executive for that kind of recreance. Maybe, just maybe, if he was a little less corrupt, and had sorted out the centuries old problem with NOPD, he wouldn't have this problem right now.

You should also think about his silence during the rehab of the city's costal defence system.

As I said, there is plenty of blame to go around at all levels, but this guy deserves his share too; Instead of praise because he had a hissy fit, about shit he didn't give a fuck about a week ago.

50%, not 20%.

And it's his fault because he's the mayor. Just like you would blame any executive for that kind of recreance. Maybe, just maybe, if he was a little less corrupt, and had sorted out the centuries old problem with NOPD, he wouldn't have this problem right now.

You should also think about his silence during the rehab of the city's costal defence system.

As I said, there is plenty of blame to go around at all levels, but this guy deserves his share too; Instead of praise because he had a hissy fit, about shit he didn't give a fuck about a week ago.
I take that back about the 20 percent. I understood it differently when I heard it on the news this morning. I still don't blame the mayor for it, though.

"Shortly after taking office, Nagin launched an anti-corruption campaign within city government" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Nagin

"On July 22, not yet three months into his administration, the new mayor ordered a lightning raid on the city's Taxicab Bureau, arresting more than 80 employees and cabbies (including his own cousin) on bribery and related charges,"
http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher073102.asp
I think he gave a fuck about the people of New Orleans.

You were saying?
I think that she stated that you were wrong?

"No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming" (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html)

Perhaps she knows more than you do?

I think that she stated that you were wrong?

"No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming" (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html)

Perhaps she knows more than you do?

Apparently she doesn't!

Intelligencer Journal report: "Both Bush AND Clinton administration proposed budgts that lowballed the needs!"

That need being stronger levees.

Also, read the whole thread.

The Mayor deserves some of the blame because where was he when he ordered the mandatory evacuation with the buses? He claims the Federal Government should have done it but the Federal Government doesnt have the power to act before a disaster. The Federal Government gets involved AFTER the storms hit because of US Law which dates back to the time of end of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Period. Having heard the Mayor of NO on the radio today, I can understand his position, he's stressed out, and such, but the man needs a good smack and he needs to be told to straighten up and start being a leader than whining to every outlet which will listen to him.

He's had nothing nice to say about any of the rescue efforts thus far. Even though the Coast Guard has been the main reason people have been plucked off of roofs. Even though the Army Corps of Engineers was in New Orleans the day the levies broke attempting to fix them. He says the ACE isnt doing enough..what more does he want them to do? This is a complicated project..how do you remove water from a city below sea level surrounded by water..and futhermore he's complaining about the fact the naval ships havent arrived yet..maybe he thinks the USN can get from Norfolk to New Orleans in a day but thats not how it works IRL.

I heard something which smacked of pangs of truth today though: "At multiple levels of disaster relief there were failures, from the city, to the state to FEMA itself". The city didnt tell FEMA about the people in the convention center at first. FEMA had to ask about that. The state was slow in declaring a state of emergency(re the states version of Martial Law) and asking for Federal assistance, and FEMA is to blame simply because they dont seem to be prepared for a super-natural disaster. FEMA can handle regular disasters but this rarity is beyond their scope. The Bush government isnt solely to blame for budget cuts, the Clinton Administration cut funding for those projects in New Orleans as well. Neither President did it to be malicious either, they were just acting in the way congress suggested(remember it is Congress that has the power of the pork..I mean purse.)

Apparently she doesn't!

Intelligencer Journal report: "Both Bush AND Clinton administration proposed budgts that lowballed the needs!"

That need being stronger levees.

Also, read the whole thread.

Why does the actions of Clinton justify what the shrub did?

Why does the actions of Clinton justify what the shrub did?


Because it isnt fair to put this solely on the shoulders of Bush when this has been the standing policy continued over from the previous administration.

Insulting me won't change the truth, and hiding your head in the sand won't either.

Your disappointment and or approval of me is of little importance to me.

Funny when your a mod everyone is nice then when your normal they are assholes to you. Go figure :rolleyes:

Because it isnt fair to put this solely on the shoulders of Bush when this has been the standing policy continued over from the previous administration.

So if this happened in Clintons time, would you have said "Well you know poppy Bush...."

It was never if a catagoy 4; it has always been when.

So if the shrub is a superior President, then why not fix something that was guaranteed to disable a city? How much are we going to spend helping these people? How much was it going to cost to shore up the levies?

Funny when your a mod everyone is nice then when your normal they are assholes to you. Go figure :rolleyes:

And........

What's your point?

Because it isnt fair to put this solely on the shoulders of Bush when this has been the standing policy continued over from the previous administration.


One could go back to the Coolidge Administration. Every President and Congress since then has dropped the ball on New Orleans.

So if this happened in Clintons time, would you have said "Well you know poppy Bush...."

It was never if a catagoy 4; it has always been when.

So if the shrub is a superior President, then why not fix something that was guaranteed to disable a city? How much are we going to spend helping these people? How much was it going to cost to shore up the levies?

Because New Orleans hadnt asked for money to update the levies during Poppy Bush's administration. They asked during Clintons admin and didnt get it. You do know how the government works right? The Congress proposes and passes budgetary bills. Its why Bush doesnt deserve the blame. And in truth neither does Clinton. The blame extends to the Congress in both administrations. So put your political dislike for Bush aside for one moment and see some logic in this.

One could go back to the Coolidge Administration. Every President and Congress since then has dropped the ball on New Orleans.


Well part of the reason is, its not the US governments problem. Its a municipal problem. If the city of New Orleans wanted to update those Levies they should have went to the state for funding.

Because New Orleans hadnt asked for money to update the levies during Poppy Bush's administration. They asked during Clintons admin and didnt get it. You do know how the government works right? The Congress proposes and passes budgetary bills. Its why Bush doesnt deserve the blame. And in truth neither does Clinton. The blame extends to the Congress in both administrations. So put your political dislike for Bush aside for one moment and see some logic in this.

Ah and so the process will never change since it always someone else's fault.

You do know that if you go to congress with questions, they will have their list of villains.

Let me tell you something, if the shrub had said as leader I take full responsibility of this situation. We screwed up. Let's fix this and then let's make better plans for the next time.

I would actually respect the man for that. Rather then the "nobody saw this coming comments."

I guess I am a believer of "the buck stops here" principle.

BTW: My disgust for the shrub doesn't play into judgment. If Clinton was in charge and the same thing happened, I would bash him as well.

But I guess it's easier to blame the predecessor.....

Let's see, it's known for decades the levees couldn't stand up to a cat 4-5 hurricane, but no one in congress or the republican or democratic administrations does has the cahone's to demand the levees and pumping system be upgraded - Lots of people have some 'splainin' to do. BAD

It's known for days the Hurricane coming and a mandatory evacuation order is issued and lots of people either A) Ignore it - stupid people, deserve what they got, or B) can't afford to leave - Poor people gotta feel sorry for them.
BAD

It's know that a lot of people haven't and/or aren't leaving and the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana don't do anything to force the stupid ones to leave or assist the poor people in leaving. BAD

The worst happens and the city devolves into anarchy and the Governor of Louisiana makes speeches, but never calls in her national guard troops (not all of them are in Iraq or Afghanistan, there are plenty still in Louisiana) and the Mayor doesn't ask her to, he relies on the police force. BAD

The worst happens and people take advantage of it and become animals who loot, rape and pillage the city and no one has the balls to issue a shoot to kill all looters proclamation. BAD

Seems to me there is plenty of blame to go around here. Lots of people fucked up, not just Bush - in fact Bush probably has the smallest amount of responsibility of anyone here IMHO. Congress should be blasted for failing to fix levies, both Bushes and Clinton should be shamed for not demanding congress appropriate the money to fix them and the mayor of N.O. and the Governor should be shamed for failing to take the steps needed to lessen the disasterous results. Yep, there is enough blame to go around - so why not focus on helping out right now and leave the blame game for the congressional pomp and blue ribbon panels that will surely follow and work to protect everyone's political ass.

Why does the actions of Clinton justify what the shrub did?

It doesn't but to put the blame on one man isn't right either.

Seems to me there is plenty of blame to go around here. Lots of people fucked up, not just Bush - in fact Bush probably has the smallest amount of responsibility of anyone here IMHO. Congress should be blasted for failing to fix levies, both Bushes and Clinton should be shamed for demanding congress appropriate the money to fix them and the mayor of N.O. and the Governor should be shamed for failing to take the steps needed to lessen the disasterous results. Yep, there is enough blame to go around - so why not focus on helping out right now and leave the blame game for the congressional pomp and blue ribbon panels that will surely follow and work to protect everyone's political ass.

Preech it brother!

Ah and so the process will never change since it always someone else's fault.

You do know that if you go to congress with questions, they will have their list of villains.

Let me tell you something, if the shrub had said as leader I take full responsibility of this situation. We screwed up. Let's fix this and then let's make better plans for the next time.

I would actually respect the man for that. Rather then the "nobody saw this coming comments."

I guess I am a believer of "the buck stops here" principle.

BTW: My disgust for the shrub doesn't play into judgment. If Clinton was in charge and the same thing happened, I would bash him as well.

But I guess it's easier to blame the predecessor.....


Sigh you miss the point entirely and choose to go straight for the blame. You ignore how the the government works as well. The executive office does not have the power of the purse. But go ahead and say your disgust of Bush doesnt influence your opinion. The blame lies elsewhere and you fail to realize this.

It doesn't but to put the blame on one man isn't right either.

Why not? He is the leader.

Is it not the President and Congress that are being judged? It does not matter what people hold the seats.

Look at corporations; the fact that a companies management changed does not exclude it from the repercussions of bad decision of the previous management. It will be held accountable.

Tangent: There has only been one man I truely respected in an exective position. It was at an aerodefense company. Something went wrong and a hell of alot of money was lost. The VP called a meeting. He asked for an explanation of what was wrong. Everytime somebody started a blame game; he cut them off with "I don't give a shit. What will it take to fix that? When will you have it installed?" He made a couple notes and moved on.

The meeting lasted 15 minutes! Damn he was good. The people that screwed up were punished. Especially if they bypassed processes and poclicies.

Back to armchair politics. ;)

I take that back about the 20 percent. I understood it differently when I heard it on the news this morning. I still don't blame the mayor for it, though.

"Shortly after taking office, Nagin launched an anti-corruption campaign within city government" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Nagin

"On July 22, not yet three months into his administration, the new mayor ordered a lightning raid on the city's Taxicab Bureau, arresting more than 80 employees and cabbies (including his own cousin) on bribery and related charges,"
http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher073102.asp
I think he gave a fuck about the people of New Orleans.

Well, I am sure cleaning up corruption in the taxi service did a lot to protect the city from a threat that has been well acknowledged since 1906.

Like I said, no-one; not Bush, not the Republicans, not the Democratic Party, not anyone looks good about this: there is plenty of blame to go around about the way this situation has developed. But I think it is completely false to lionize the man with the "superdome" plan.

It's not so much could New Orleans or any coastal city handle a Cat5 storm, the answer is probably no. The question is, could the massive floods have been avoided if the work had been done to them that Bush cut the funds for. That has been the real question throughout this thread. (I started the thread, I have a pretty good idea where I was going with it)..LOL :p
Here's the thing with what you are saying. No levee could withstand a cat 5.
If it can't withstand a cat 5, what makes you think the repairs would have prevented the flooding that would have resulted from the same levee being destroyed by the cat 5?

Bush could suspend the Constition in the area. NO mayor cannot. Congress can declare Martial Law in the affected regions. So far that hasn't happened and I want to know why!



That, I don't know. I do know that the National Guard and Police have guns drawn in the NO CBD! It'll be interesting to watch.
No. Bush cannot suspend the constitution.

No. Bush cannot suspend the constitution.

Actually yes he can. He could declare a state of emergency and that is that. No more constitution. Congress can do nothing about it for awhile.

did some google searching and it appears that the improvements were to rebuild the levees that were sinking and not to upgrade them to handle a cat 4 hurricane.




http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html
Shouldn't have been too difficult to just build on top of the ones that had sunk. Would probably be cheaper and better than just reraising the current ones.

Here's the thing with what you are saying. No levee could withstand a cat 5.
If it can't withstand a cat 5, what makes you think the repairs would have prevented the flooding that would have resulted from the same levee being destroyed by the cat 5?Why did Bush think the levees would hold if they can't withstand a cat 5 and why didn't he get things moving so that once the storm was over aid could get in?

There's a big difference between 9/11 and Katrina. Katrina devastated the southern coasts of three states and has left many hundreds of thousands of people homeless while the attack on the WTC caused destruction that was quite localized to one part, which was primarily a business district, of one city.
911=3,000 people died
Hurricane Katrina= over 10,000 people died.

Now compare them.

Such is human nature.

Remember the collapsed overpass that killed all those people when Loma Preta went?

It was known that it would happen. The retired civil engineer of San Francisco(father-in-law of a coworker at the time) bitched he had told people about it for 20 years.

They kept tossing the dice for luck and it eventually bite them.

The levies were known but they were gambling that a hurricane like Katrina wouldn't happen. After all the last one was in 1968.

Don't have an answer for that one. Well maybe a few sack beatings. ;)

People don't heed the warnings until disaster hits and its too late. You should know that from human history already.

Well if you saw the Foamy the Squirrl report. It will be a week and then everybody won't give a shit and all they will do is sit around and bitch about the cost of Gas. ;)
Sadly, I agree with that statement. Cause people just don't care about anything that does not impact them directly.
Why do I have the strange feeling that when the gas prices go up, people are going to blame the residents of NO for not paying to repair levees that the people of NO were probably too poor to pay for in the first place?

I suggest you read this:
Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, recently warned Orlando, Florida, that it was courting natural disaster by allowing gay pride flags to be flown along its streets.

"A condition like this will bring about ...earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor,"Robertson said.

Apparently he was referring to his belief that the presence of openly gay people incurs divine wrath and that God acts through geological and meteorological events to destroy municipalities that permit gay people the same civil liberties as others. (Robertson also warned Orlando about terrorist bombs, suggesting the possibility that God may also employ terrorists.)

Before Pat and his Christian cronies get too carried away promulgating the idea that natural disasters are prompted by people who displease God, they should take a hard look at the data.

Take tornadoes. Every state (except Alaska) has them--some only one or two a year, dozens in others.

Gay people are in every state (even Alaska). According to Pat's hypothesis, there should be more gay people in states that have more tornadoes. But are there? Nope. In fact, there's no correlation at all between the number of gay folks (as estimated by the number of gay political organizations, support groups, bookstores, radio programs, and circuit parties) and the annual tornado count =AE =3D .04, p =3D .78 for you statisticians).

So much for the "God hates gays" theory.

God seems almost neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. I say "almost" because if we look at the density of gay groups relative to the population as a whole, there is a small but statistically significant (p .05) correlation
with the occurrence of tornadoes. And it's a negative correlation =AE =3D -.28).

For those of you who haven't used statistics since 1973, that means that a high concentration of gay organizations actually protects against tornadoes. A state with the population of, say, Alabama could avert two tornadoes a year merely by doubling the number of gay organizations in the state. (Tough choice for Alabama's civil defense strategists.)

Although God may not care about sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for religious affiliation. If the underlying tenet of Pat's postulate is true--that God wipes out offensive folks via natural disasters --then perhaps we can find some evidence of who's on God's hit list.

Jews are off the hook here: there's no correlation between numbers of Jews and frequency of tornadoes. Ditto for Catholics. But when it comes to Protestants, there's a highly significant correlation of .71.

This means that fully half the state-to-state variation in tornado frequency can be accounted for by the presence of Protestants. And the chance that this association is merely coincidental is only one in 10,000.

Protestants, of course, come in many flavors--we were able to find statistics for Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Others. Lutherans don't seem to be a problem--no correlation with tornadoes. There's a modest correlation
=AE =3D .52, p =3D .0001) between Methodists and tornadoes.

But Baptists and Others share the prize:both groups show a definite correlation with tornado frequency =AE =3D .68, p =3D .0001). This means that Texas could cut its average of 139 tornadoes per year in half by sending
a few hundred thousand Baptists elsewhere (Alaska maybe?).

What, you are probably asking yourself, about gay Protestants? An examination of the numbers of gay religious groups (mostly Protestant) reveals no significant relationship with tornadoes. Perhaps even Protestants are less
repugnant to God if they're gay.

And that brings up another point--the futility of trying to save the world by getting gay people to accept Jesus. It looks from our numbers as if the frequency of natural disasters might be more effectively reduced by encouraging
Protestants to be gay.

Gay people have been falsely blamed for disasters ever since Sodom was destroyed by fire and brimstone. (We have been unable to find any statistics on disasters involving brimstone). According to a reliable source, the destruction of Sodom was indeed an act of God. (see Genesis 19:13) It's destruction was perpetrated because the citizens thereof were, according to the same source (see Ezekiel 16:49-50) "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned [and] did not help the poor and needy"--not because they were gay.

Now Pat would have us believe that gays are the cause of tornadoes (as well as earthquakes, meteors, and even terrorist bombs) in utter disregard for evidence showing that Baptists are much more likely to cause them.

I say "Kudos!" to Orlando. Despite Robertson's warning that Orlando is "right in the way of some serious hurricanes" (hardly a revelation), note that it was not struck by the very destructive Hurricane Andrew a few years ago. And amid the recent conflagrations (that's fires) in central Florida, which occurred just after Pat sounded his alarm, Orlando was spared. Keep those flags waving!

As any statistician will tell you, of course, correlation doesn't prove causation. Protestants causing tornadoes by angering God isn't the only explanation for these data. It could be that Baptists and Other Protestants purposely flock to states that have lots of tornadoes (no, we haven't checked for a correlation between IQ and religious affiliation).

But if Pat and his Christian crew insist that natural disasters are brought on by people who offend God, let the data show who those people are.


Janis Walworth July 16, 1998 - Sources:
Tornado Occurrence by State, 1962-1991
1990 Churches and Church Membership;
Population by State, 1990 US Census;
Gay & Lesbian Political Organizations,
Support Groups, and Religious Groups
from Gayellow Pages, National Edition, 1987.

Permission is given to all to reprint this article
in its entirety on a not-for-profit basis.

I haven't read the entire post. I only have this to say about Pat Robertson: he's worse than a false christian. He's a false prophet and a false teacher. He does not represent the true christians.

Further, just because God condemns homosexuality, does not mean he is going to strike down the homo. Nor does it mean he going to cause natural disasters in states with homos. Do you know why? Cause a lot of those states have non homos. And nonsinners. God will not kill the righteous just to get at the evil.
Look back to the time when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Remember what happened? If there were 5 righteous people in the city, God would not destroy it, even if the all the other inhabitants were debauchers.
It is the same with states today. Even if there were gays in NO (we know there were cause gays are everywhere), God would not strike down NO because of the fact that even though there are sinners there, there are also righteous people there.
If you read all my posts, you would know that I said that God did not cause Katrina or the flooding. But he that he allowed human error to cause it. So don't go blaming God for this. If you want someone to blame, blame the greedy, blame the powermongers, blame those who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, blame those who refuse to accept responsibility for actions they take that end up getting many other people hurt.

You are exactly on the topic and to the point. How can the world's greatest power be completely unable to respond to a disaster in less than a week? It is shameful and there should be repercussions throughout the government.
No government could have done a better attempt at responding to this disaster. The US did the best it could with the information it had. No other nation on earth could have afforded the expense of the preparations the US government did make for this one. Its just that the preparations turned out to be not enough.

I'm an occultist, and I'm this close to showing you that occultism works by teaching you to make this kind of insensitive, intollerant, bigoted, bloodthirsty remark! I'll not do it simply because I have some bit of respect for whoever ELSE that would be affected, something which you lack, you poor excuse for a human being!
I think you should go back and reread my posts. Apparently you are saying that people should not have to responsible for their actions.

Yes. And you're happy about it, because you can't stand the thought of anyone being different from you and decide that God, a being that's evolved beyond my comprehension and beyond your lack of one is just as bigoted as you are - enough of a murderer to KILL ten thousand people, too, mind you. You're either joking, or a troll, or you're a moron that belongs with Fred Phelps and his ilk. I wonder if, when such a disaster happens to you, it'll be an act of God to punish you too, or if you, in your megalomaniacal self-righteousness, will also blame it on "fags", as your ilk calls them. You're a non-person!
Oh? So is that what you think? As I stated previously, go back and reread my posts.

It's kinda odd that people are up in arms about the international community having failed to arrive, when 5 days after the hurricane, America's own Army is only just beginning to show up. I heard a guy say on the news that there are 14,000 mobilised National Guard for the whole affected area. Woo. :rolleyes:

I am quite interested to know what the survivors of all this will say, weeks from now, when they hear the misinformation that has been spread by the administration. That right now the situation is under control.

Everyone misses the point. Even had every crappy project that NO wanted had been overfunded and completed in half the time, it wouldn't have made any difference. Indeed, some levy breeches occured in areas that had been replaced, as per the 2002 plan. Funding, or lack thereof, would have made no difference as the Army Corp of engineers and State and Local agencies had colectively made the decision not to prepare for anything worse than a median Cat. 3. This hurricane was, predictably, far worse.

And if anyone is a douchebag politician in all this, lets start with that criminal of a mayor. Half the police force of NO has walked off the job. Yes, there is plenty of blame for everyone, but when the best plan a city can come up with is "lets hide in the superdome", a great deal of it should also be focused on the local level.
I think you got a point there about the police. They basically abandoned their posts when they walked off the jobs. They abandoned the people they were supposed to be serving and protecting. There needs to be accountability here.

Seems to me there is plenty of blame to go around here. Lots of people fucked up, not just Bush - in fact Bush probably has the smallest amount of responsibility of anyone here IMHO. Congress should be blasted for failing to fix levies, both Bushes and Clinton should be shamed for not demanding congress appropriate the money to fix them and the mayor of N.O. and the Governor should be shamed for failing to take the steps needed to lessen the disasterous results. Yep, there is enough blame to go around - so why not focus on helping out right now and leave the blame game for the congressional pomp and blue ribbon panels that will surely follow and work to protect everyone's political ass.
Amen. And maybe we all could take a break from the "you/no, you" game, too, for a bit? :rolleyes:

The mayor is the only person I've heard so far that hasn't spouted bullshit. And how is it his fault that 20% (yes 20%) of the police force didn't show up for work?
Well, if you are a cop, and you don't show up for work during a major catastrophy, that is just criminal. And if the mayor lets them off the hook, then he's a criminal too.

It's kinda odd that people are up in arms about the international community having failed to arrive, when 5 days after the hurricane, America's own Army is only just beginning to show up. I heard a guy say on the news that there are 14,000 mobilised National Guard for the whole affected area. Woo. :rolleyes:

I am quite interested to know what the survivors of all this will say, weeks from now, when they hear the misinformation that has been spread by the administration. That right now the situation is under control.You've got to be kidding me. The international community is being blamed for the Administration not accepting aid yet? Who said that?

Because it isnt fair to put this solely on the shoulders of Bush when this has been the standing policy continued over from the previous administration.
You can't blame the President for the Congress refusing to fund the levees. Congress controls the federal budget. Bush does not. Neither did Clinton.

You've got to be kidding me. The international community is being blamed for the Administration not accepting aid yet? Who said that?
LMAO, check out some of the threads in general, and the 3 page Comment section on the BBC News website! :eek: Apparently the world is silent. In fact, it's just being ignored as usual. :rolleyes:

Well, if you are a cop, and you don't show up for work during a major catastrophy, that is just criminal. And if the mayor lets them off the hook, then he's a criminal too.I dunno. What good do you think cops that are willing to give up their jobs because they see no sense in it anymore are going to be able to do?

So if this happened in Clintons time, would you have said "Well you know poppy Bush...."

It was never if a catagoy 4; it has always been when.

So if the shrub is a superior President, then why not fix something that was guaranteed to disable a city? How much are we going to spend helping these people? How much was it going to cost to shore up the levies?
why are you so upset about Bush as if he had power to dictate to Congress? Where is your anger toward your Congressman who voted with his colleagues to cut the funding for the NO levees?

Because it isnt fair to put this solely on the shoulders of Bush when this has been the standing policy continued over from the previous administration.
This article says you are sadly mistaken:

"No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming" (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372455,00.html)

A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.

Actually yes he can. He could declare a state of emergency and that is that. No more constitution. Congress can do nothing about it for awhile.
The Constitution does not give him the authority to do that. He can only do it in the event of a war or a civil insurrection.

It's kinda odd that people are up in arms about the international community having failed to arrive, when 5 days after the hurricane, America's own Army is only just beginning to show up. I heard a guy say on the news that there are 14,000 mobilised National Guard for the whole affected area. Woo. :rolleyes:

I am quite interested to know what the survivors of all this will say, weeks from now, when they hear the misinformation that has been spread by the administration. That right now the situation is under control.
Where did you hear that? Cause I've been hearing Bush say the situation is not under control.

I dunno. What good do you think cops that are willing to give up their jobs because they see no sense in it anymore are going to be able to do?
At least a half million people were counting on those cops not to abadon them to the thugs. The reason for the looting and the rapes is because the police abandoned the city and left it to the worst of criminals. And that is a crime that should not go unpunished.

Where did you hear that? Cause I've been hearing Bush say the situation is not under control.
He was saying that today, yeah. Rather late in realising it.

CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/katrina.response/index.html

Note what the FEMA and Homeland Security guys were saying this whole time.

At least a half million people were counting on those cops not to abadon them to the thugs. The reason for the looting and the rapes is because the police abandoned the city and left it to the worst of criminals. And that is a crime that should not go unpunished.
The police I've seen interviewed on TV say their radio batteries are dead and the stations washed away anyway. They are just as on their own as everyone else.