NationStates Jolt Archive

If you've been following the Katrina story, this USA Today story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-12-two-governors_x.htm) doesn't tell you much you didn't already know.

Except for this little bit:
She [Blanco] says that two days after Katrina, desperate for help, she couldn't get through to Bush and didn't get a callback; hours later, she tried again, and they talked....

Barbour hasn't had to wait hours to talk to Bush. In fact, Barbour said in an interview with USA TODAY, the president called him three to four times in the wake of Katrina. "I never called him. He always called me," he said.

Gee, I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Barbour is an old Republican hand and Blanco's a moderate Democrat, could it? That's just cynicism talking right?

Right?

I didn't think so.

no as there were no armed uprising against an invading power

or did you mean in a political way?

no as there were no armed uprising against an invading power

or did you mean in a political way?
Partisanship as in political favoritism.

And by the way, for everyone who still wants to blame Blanco for not asking for help in time, I suggest you look at the report released yesterday by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf) Warning--pdf file.

Or even read this , as it proves she followed proper procedure.

Press Release - Date: 8/27/2005 (http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976)

I know I wouldn't say anything more about this. But Blanco did such a good job.. so much so the adminstration considered declaring the insurrection act and taking over the relief operations themselves. They didn't since that could been political suicide. I'm starting to think they should of anyways for the lives of people in the gulf coast.

So let's see--6 people have voted no so far in the poll, but no one--not even Mesatecala, who has at least posted in the thread--has yet attempted to explain the disparity in the difference between the amount of communication between Bush and Blanco, who had to go begging to talk to Bush and between Bush and Barbour, who Bush called frequently.

Should I be surprised? :rolleyes:

So let's see--6 people have voted no so far in the poll, but no one--not even Mesatecala, who has at least posted in the thread--has yet attempted to explain the disparity in the difference between the amount of communication between Bush and Blanco, who had to go begging to talk to Bush and between Bush and Barbour, who Bush called frequently.

Should I be surprised? :rolleyes:

I think you are basing everything on one article and that isn't wise. This allegation of partisanship is nonsense.

I think you are basing everything on one article and that isn't wise. This allegation of partisanship is nonsense.
Well, the fact that Blanco had trouble getting through to Bush has been reported elsewhere (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1103525,00.html), so I'm not relying on just one source for that part.

Should I be surprised? :rolleyes:

No, not at all. Nothing on NS surprises me anymore. ;)

Or even read this , as it proves she followed proper procedure.

Press Release - Date: 8/27/2005 (http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976)
Yep, she followed proper procedure in asking for a mere $9mil in aid in case there was a non-direct landfall.

Just how does that translate to a "OMG poor black people in New Orleans are gonna DIE if you Feds don't get here yesterday!" letter? - (which seems to be the crux of the arguments as to "why Bush is responsible" and "doesn't care about poor black folk")

So let's see--6 people have voted no so far in the poll, but no one--not even Mesatecala, who has at least posted in the thread--has yet attempted to explain the disparity in the difference between the amount of communication between Bush and Blanco, who had to go begging to talk to Bush and between Bush and Barbour, who Bush called frequently.

Should I be surprised? :rolleyes:
So you take a quote from Blanco as gospel, even though it is in direct contravention to what the president and Mayor Nagin has said about her.

All this is, is you taking Blanco CYA quote to bash Bush. Should anyone be surprised? :rolleyes:

Antre_Travarious']So you take a quote from Blanco as gospel, even though it is in direct contravention to what the president and Mayor Nagin has said about her.

All this is, is you taking Blanco CYA quote to bash Bush. Should anyone be surprised? :rolleyes:
Go to the third post in this thread, follow the link to the pdf file put together by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, read it, then come back and admit that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Go to the third post in this thread, follow the link to the pdf file put together by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, read it, then come back and admit that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I've been scanning it on and off most of the day. What I fail to see is how a preemptive request for $9mil in federal aid equals having the Fed stand ready to immediately teleport in to rescue them from a multi-billion dollar catastrophy - while it was doing the same for Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

I've been scanning it on and off most of the day. What I fail to see is how a preemptive request for $9mil in federal aid equals having the Fed stand ready to immediately teleport in to rescue them from a multi-billion dollar catastrophy - while it was doing the same for Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.
You said that I was taking Blanco's word as gospel--obviously, I wasn't. I went to a third party who backed up Blanco's version of the story. In response, you set up the flimsy-ass strawman seen above. Go back to my original post, where the USA Today reports that while Blanco was getting the telephone runaround in Washington, barbour was getting phone calls from Bush. That's the partisanship I'm talking about--post-hurricane, calling for help runaround that Bush gave the Democratic governor while chatting the Republican governor up. Now answer that, not your pathetic little strawmen.

You said that I was taking Blanco's word as gospel--obviously, I wasn't. Nope, that was Antre_Travarious. Sorry.

I went to a third party who backed up Blanco's version of the story. In response, you set up the flimsy-ass strawman seen above. Go back to my original post, where the USA Today reports that while Blanco was getting the telephone runaround in Washington, barbour was getting phone calls from Bush. That's the partisanship I'm talking about--post-hurricane, calling for help runaround that Bush gave the Democratic governor while chatting the Republican governor up. Now answer that, not your pathetic little strawmen.Well, since my comment wa related to (A)Stephistan's comment about procedure and (B) yours telling Antre_Travarious to read the CRS PDF, I'm not really sure what you are talking about.

But, if you like USA today, how about CNN? You may want to look at THIS VIDEO (available for download) (http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/12/blancocnndaybreak/) which pretty much demonstrates how desperate she was for help...

Nope, that was Antre_Travarious. Sorry.

Doh! You're right. My apologies.

Doh! You're right. My apologies.
No worries. Done it myself. ;)

If you've been following the Katrina story, this USA Today story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-12-two-governors_x.htm) doesn't tell you much you didn't already know.

Except for this little bit:


Gee, I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Barbour is an old Republican hand and Blanco's a moderate Democrat, could it? That's just cynicism talking right?

Right?

I didn't think so.Does anyone besides me consider USA Today unreliable?

Does anyone besides me consider USA Today unreliable?
You mean the "Readers Digest Condensed Version" of newspapers? Naah. ;)

You mean the "Readers Digest Condensed Version" of newspapers? Naah. ;)Shucks. Just me and my Int'l Politics professor then... :D

Does anyone besides me consider USA Today unreliable?
Unrelable? No. Written at a 6th grade level? Certainly. But that doesn't make them unreliable. I can't recall a situation where I've ever had to question their accuracy, unlike, say, the NY Times.

Addendum: I'm not saying USA Today is a superior paper to the NY Times--just that there have been times where the Times has been factually wrong and has been slow about correcting themselves, like their Whitewater reporting for instance. I'm sure it's happened to USA Today as well, but I don't recall them offhand.

Partisanship as in political favoritism.

And by the way, for everyone who still wants to blame Blanco for not asking for help in time, I suggest you look at the report released yesterday by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf) Warning--pdf file.
I just skimmed the thing because it is long and written by lawyers in their peculiar language. What the pages I read closely seem to indicate is that Blanco's request for federal aid was recognized by the President because on several different occasions prior to the hurricane coming ashore, he either declared a disaster area or modified the declared area per the Governors request.

Now, did Brown expeditiously carry out his duties? Not a chance. I don't think this relief effort was botched as a result of politically motivation as it was botched because of incompetence. Maybe there is a paragraph in that tome you linked in that contradicts that. Just tell me where.

I just skimmed the thing because it is long and written by lawyers in their peculiar language. What the pages I read closely seem to indicate is that Blanco's request for federal aid was recognized by the President because on several different occasions prior to the hurricane coming ashore, he either declared a disaster area or modified the declared area per the Governors request.

Now, did Brown expeditiously carry out his duties? Not a chance. I don't think this relief effort was botched as a result of politically motivation as it was botched because of incompetence. Maybe there is a paragraph in that tome you linked in that contradicts that. Just tell me where.
When I'm talking about the partisanship, I'm talking about the fact that Blanco couldn't get through to Bush to ask for help while Barbour didn't even have to ask because he was getting calls from Bush. Nothing about FEMA--that link I provided was just to quell what I figured would be the inevitable claims that Blanco didn't ask for help in the first place.

When I'm talking about the partisanship, I'm talking about the fact that Blanco couldn't get through to Bush to ask for help while Barbour didn't even have to ask because he was getting calls from Bush. Nothing about FEMA--that link I provided was just to quell what I figured would be the inevitable claims that Blanco didn't ask for help in the first place.
I not going to call the Governor a liar, maybe just inexperienced and hysterical. I'm sure she thinks she did exactly what was quoted. Reality may or may not be coincident with her recollections. On the other hand, Barbour undoubtedly benefited from his past role as RNC chairman.

This is going to be investigated to death, so I imagine there will be an incontrovertible time line established. Just to add fuel to the fire, though, a portion of a Larry King (don't laugh) interview (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/30/lkl.01.html) with Blanco shows that she had frequent conversations with the President.

Well, I've been in touch with the president. He's called often before the storm and after the storm.

She seems to have a different version of the events, depending on the occasion. So, no, I still don't think politics entered into this fiasco, only incompetence.

I don't know if Bush ignored the Louisiana governor for being a Democrat, but I do know that partisanship has been rampant in the blame games surrounding the hurricane.

I don't know if Bush ignored the Louisiana governor for being a Democrat, but I do know that partisanship has been rampant in the blame games surrounding the hurricane.
Maybe so, but only one side has been calling for an independent investigation of the response and is willing to let the chips fall where they may, and it ain't the Republican side.

Hillary Clinton is using it to run for her presidential campaign. The draft Hillary web page uses Katrina to get people to donate to her election fund.

I haven't read any of the rest of this thread, but I thought people should know that.