Senate disaster thread. Realities and Responses to the Force of Nature

Where are the resources to deal with this crisis? In Iraq perhaps?

As I've told other people, not every issue has to relate back to Iraq.

We have the resources here to deal with the disaster, even with the troops in Iraq. The problem is not resources, it is logistics and planning. The bulk of that failure rests on the local and state officials who did not have adequate plans in place for this situation. Part of the blame also lies with the engineers who designed the levees 40 years ago (and the politicians who decided to only have them built to withstand a category 3 storm). Part rests with the slow deployment of National Guard troops (under joint command of both the Louisiana governor and the President).

Kimball Kinnison

 

Sure, the state officials may not have adequetely planned, but from what I understand they had been trying to get federal resources as well, to no avail.

And of course there are a lack of resources, Kimball, that's reality. Heck, you could make a fair argument and say that without Iraq, we still might not have enough, but you can't say Iraq doesn't affect this, that's naive. Think about the inordinate amount of money and resources we've dumped into Iraq, meaning CUTS in other places. Slow deployment of the national gaurd you say? Maybe cause they're all in IRAQ!?!

Bush is going to go down in the polls even further for this, because the buck stops at the President's desk, sure, others messed up, but ultimately, HE messed up and he's the one who has to answer to US.

 

Part of the blame also lies with the engineers who designed the levees 40 years ago (and the politicians who decided to only have them built to withstand a category 3 storm).

The reasons for structural damage are as irrelevant as nature is unpredictable. The current problem of food, water, survival, and stabilizing the chaos in New Orleans in an appropriate time frame, of which I believe has passed, owes alot more to the problem of having FEMA fall under the homeland security blanket and all the pork and bureacracy that that entails. If anything positive comes out of this it will be a national disaster czar that for the most part answers to no one that will be able to mobilize immediately for future disasters.

 

I think it's become clear that we've spent at least half a trillion dollars chasing after terrorist boogeymen, sacrificing potential and actual problems at the altar of alleged "homeland security".

I don't believe for a moment that we're any safer than we were four years ago, but I know we're collectively a bit lighter in the wallet (as a country), and we're also in a country we don't really have any business being in for reasons that are murky and even more uncertain gains that make the aforementioned reasons look clear by comparison.

I think a lot of people (especially in the South, which may put some dents in Republican strongholds) are going to be asking why we're spending so much money overseas and for highly questionable purposes for uncertain gains when we ought to be putting more focus and resources into domestic issues.

I'm sure more than a few people here have read about the exercise based on a fictional "Hurricane Pam" last year, which predicted almost everything that has actually happened. The exercise wasn't taken seriously, and here we are today with the exercise playing out on live television for all of us and on the streets of the gulf coast for the people who are actually there.

We should never have gotten into Iraq, and we should never have let terrorists run our country as much as they have been. Instead, we should stop chasing after boogeymen and put more attention on what really matters: helping each other.

 

Yeah, I'm sure the citizens of London share your feelings about "terrorist boogeymen"

Wow! Don't know what to say to that!


Yancy

 

Terrorists ultimately can and will strike no matter what we prepare for or do. They need succeed only once, whereas we must succeed every time in stopping them.

Londoners were hit, dealt with the incidents and then moved on with their lives (so far as I can tell, at least). There's simply no way to adequately protect the most vulnerable parts of this country (or any other country) from smart terrorists who know how to strike.

We should do a reasonable amount to prepare for and deal with terrorist attacks. However, we should not go overboard with it, completely taking the focus away from natural disaster planning to a much more uncertain realm.

Moderation is good, and that's something we haven't had much of in the last four years.

 

"Prepare and deal with terrorist attacks"??? So basically take the turtle approach, crawl into our shell and do nothing... hmm sounds like a great plan... always effective against tyrants, despots, fascits and psychopaths. Pat Buchanan would approve.

I'll leave with a quote from the most famous Senator from the Great State of Arizona:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater


Yancy

 

We should never have gotten into Iraq, and we should never have let terrorists run our country as much as they have been. Instead, we should stop chasing after boogeymen and put more attention on what really matters: helping each other.

Isn't that simular to what Karl Rove said many on the left believe? Why did he take such heat for simply speaking the truth?

 

So basically take the turtle approach, crawl into our shell and do nothing...

Nope. We shouldn't crawl into our shell, and I'd say we may well have done just that by shifting so much of our national priorities toward dealing with terrorism. It's debateable, but I'd prefer we put a lot more money into intelligence and more covert attacks and defenses, rather than so much wasted money at home and abroad for "security" purposes. If you want to deal with dictators, you'd best be prepared to invade a lot of countries and depose a lot of leaders and governments. Iraq won't much much difference one way or the other, except on the bottom line.

Isn't that simular to what Karl Rove said many on the left believe? Why did he take such heat for simply speaking the truth?

No, I don't think it remotely resembles what Rove said.

To keep this relevant to the thread, I say again that we would have been much better off not going into Iraq and having a lot more money and other resources available to deal with natural disasters (which may be relatively infrequent, yet are statistically certain to happen from time to time).

 

From my parents house -- looks like I can post after all -- at least one post, anyway:

OBM: The US is substantially large enough that Iraq doesn't really make that much of a dent. Your contry there IS a Superpower and even nations like France, Germany or Britain could possibly fight the Iraq war and still have enough reources to get the relief effort underway.

It wasn't the availability of resources that was the problem, it just means that Barney Smith of Oklahoma got called up instead of Marley Smith of Mississippi. It means that the pool to call on if another disaster happens is smaller, but it doesn't mean that it's happening any slower due to lack of resources, which is the key factor.

Neither is it quite that NOBODY was calling these sort of people up or that none were called up.

The problem is that the numbers called up for the scale needed in the face of this disaster were incredibly pathetic. The Governor called up 100 for every 10,000 she needed. The President wasn't touching base (except calling the governor to ask for a mandatory evacuation which is pretty much par for the course -- that would have been done anyway, phone call or not).

Looking at the governor is most important but it's a forgone conclusion. Unless you live in Louisiana, her fate doesn't effect us. What Bush is responsible for is as the second check. How has this made America look? Like someone's taken a dump right on its carpet, that's what. This is as big as an embarrasment as the WMDs and Abu Gharib put together. Speaking as someone from Canada, you people should have put his head on the voting chopping block a long time ago. I don't know for certain Kerry would have been any better but considering what has happened -- gee, a roll of the dice doesn't look so bad now DOES IT?

This is what happens when you lower the bar. Nobody picks up the pieces and just complains like some whiny kid that it's not thier mess to clean up. WHO CARES? You're being paid, do the bloody job.

And whoevers trashing the mayor of that city, read again: the man was in the city, he was wading through neck-deep in water. I'm sure he'd been to Baton Rouge but he went back as well. He's the ONLY level of government that was doing anything, which was nothing considering how all of the municipal level deteriorated. Anyone dissing the mayor just seems to be ticked because he's hard on George Bush, who deserves the lashing he's getting. Sure, the governor deserves more, but constantly insisting on that is just distracting us with the less important figure if you don't live in Louisiana.

 

Lots of people were wading neck deep through the water, that doesn't make them stellar leaders.

His responsibility was for the first response to the disaster, the response that disappeared. He was over all responsible for the organization of the evacuation points. That didnt go so well either did it?


Yes he stayed in the area but all he's really acomplished is to blame everyone else for everything.

 

Good lord. Is this still not sorted out? Are these folks still locked in the convention center?

I'm really surprised that not many people are thinking about the potential consequences of such slow and poor federal response to this disaster. If this was a massive terrorist attack on New Orleans, is there reason to think it'd have gone better? Nope, not unless the terrorists gave us even more warning than the hurricane.

As much as I hate to join in with Shepard Smith and Newt Gingrich, again, man did the Feds ---- this up.

 

Wow your amazing... try watching the whole Hannity & Colmes program next time. Colmes really tried to pin all the blame for the problem on Bush, but to no avail.

#1) They had an officer from the Louisiana Guard who had troops in place outside of New Orleans waiting for the order from the Governor to move in... the order never came until late Wednesday... whoops!

#2) They had and officer from the Coast Guard, who stated that FEMA and the Coast Guard were in place on Saturday and started relief efforts immediately after Katrina hit. The problem they didn't count on... no, not the flood. The amount of people who ignored the order for madatory evacuation and stayed behind. The expectation was that most people would heed the warning and leave... not stay behind and "wait it out."

#3) Neither Alabama, nor Mississippi have had near the problems managing resources, rescuing people and get aid to people... hmmm why's that??? Certainly not based on ethnicity since a number of the heavily affected towns in those states have high percentages of blacks... Certainly not based on economic status since many of these towns are quite poor... Hmmm, oh maybe it has something to do with the fact that these states have competent local officials who have actual emegency plans in place, in advance. Wow, funny how you can get things done rather than roll over and wait until the Feds bail you out!

#4) I loved watching the complete mental meltdown of Mayor Nagin, and then his transformation into a somewhat coherent, functioning public official. All day long he excoriates the President and the Governor but still says nothing about what he is actually doing, just "when are they gonna get of their asses and get down here?"... meets with the President, and then suddenly out of the blue suggests crop dusters to spray for mosquitos that may carry disease. See what taking a few deep breathes and calming down for a minute can do for you?

And sorry for all of those heaping praise on Mayor Nagin, he's an embarassment... he's the first line of defense for New Orleans... not the Governor, not the President, he is. It was his responsibility to make sure hospitals had the food and water they needed in case of flooding. It was they mayor who needed to rally his city police forces to ensure they did not exit en masse like they did (60% of New Orleans officers either quit or abandoned the city). It was the mayor who gave the order to send people to the Superdome and Convention Center and left them with no food or water, no instructions, and no security.

That was his job, the city's job, he failed and tried to pass the buck for his glaring mistakes. Sorry but Mayor Nagin typifies the attitudes that are so prevelant in the U.S. today, namely the Welfare State mentality that infects our country... What's the government going to do for me??? When do I get my money???


Yancy

 

That's actually what the Hannity and Colmes show is all about. I'm gonna pass on your suggestion.

1) Sounds like indeed an assload of blame should be laid at the feet of the Governor. Didn't see the show. The NG were just hanging out beyond the city borders? How many?

2) Well, in a city with a 30% poverty rate, 50000 households without a car, some of these lazy dumbasses might have had difficulty evacuating. Although I do admit that assuming the worst about everyone does make me feel better about things.

3) Were any cities affected nearly as badly as New Orleans?

4) Haven't seen the Mayor since yesterday. Here in Germany, the coverage I get is limited to CNN World, and the time zone issue is a problem. Not sure of your point. I need to cool off? I'm cool. I just thought that the federal government, under the strong leadership of our security-minded president, would be able to react more quickly than they did.

Here's another guy who deserves some blame. According to FEMA's website (section 5143), the President is supposed to appoint a Federal coordinating officer in these cases, and he's done a crappy job, whoever he is, as have the Emergency Support Teams appointed by the president.

A lot of the differences here may just have something to do with opposing views on the role of the federal government. I think that when a major city drowns, 100,000 people need help, they should go ahead and do something within, say 48 hours. They have resources beyond what a local and state government can do, so why not use them?

But I'm probably done with Hannitised defences of the feds, so take the last word dude.

 

Just a couple of quick responses:

2) There is this thing called walking. I know it's a difficult concept in this day and age, but people did have 5 days warning that this thing was coming. And they were ordered to evacuate about 48 hrs in advance. You could put a good distance between yourself and the hurricane by getting out ASAP. BTW, people in Florida tend not to screw around with hurricanes... they board up their houses and get "the hell out of Dodge."

3) Yup, Biloxi, Mississippi is completely destroyed very few buildings left standing, and Mobile, Alabama is under a bunch of water. Both Alabama and Mississippi took the brunt of Hurricane Katrina, but of course CNN & MSNBC don't bother to cover these places because there's not a bunch of "gripping drama" because state officials pretty much have things under control.

4) Again the first line of defense is local and state officials. They are in charge of disaster relief... that's their job.

Sorry never been "Hannitized", I'm a right-leaning libertarian (although I predominantly vote Republican), who feels the Federal government has it's uses but needs to get out of the people's business and let the states do the jobs they were Constitutionally appointed to do. I leave with one of my favorite quotes:

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Yancy

 

Sorry never been "Hannitized", I'm a right-leaning libertarian (although I predominantly vote Republican), who feels the Federal government has it's uses but needs to get out of the people's business and let the states do the jobs they were Constitutionally appointed to do. I leave with one of my favorite quotes:

It is completely the government's responsibility to handle the resources and recovery for Katrina. No state or local government has the resources to deal with it alone.

 

Again, you're missing my point. The initial responsibility to rescue people, feed them, give them water, and protect them was the responsibility of the local government with the limited aid and assistance of the Federal government's "first responders" who were on site at the time.

Now the Federal government is stepping in and giving the aid and providing the resources needed for the magnitude of this operation. Emergency teams from FEMA don't magically appear out of thin air and start providing relief within an hour of the disaster. I takes time to bring those resources to bear, many of these trucks and military vehicles you are seeing now came from out of state, not to mention the fact they had to navigate roads and terrain that were completely destroyed. The National Guard, Army Reserve, Air National Guard, Coast Guard, Army, and Navy units you see now are not 911. I worked relief efforts for Andrew, for flooding in Colombia, and an earthquake in Ecaudor which resulted in massive mud slides... the Federal government's initial response is limited.

It took 4 days for the full Federal response to Hurricane Andrew, and for Floyd... frankly the response time for Katrina has fallen within the average, but when you have 24hr cable news networks hyperventilating about response times, massive flooding, thousands of people who chose to remain behind rather than heed mandatory evacuation notices, and a large criminal element shooting at local police and rescue teams, it makes a quick response almost impossible.

Yancy

 

I think that when a major city drowns, 100,000 people need help, they should go ahead and do something within, say 48 hours.

But reality doesn't always work itself out in neat litte segments.

What you have to keep in mind is that New Orleans wasn't directly hit by the hurricane. As it progressed, Katrina turned East, and therefore hit the others areas that were mentioned. Mississippi was hit harder by the actual force of Katrina.

The day of the hurricane, New Orleans wasn't in particularly horrible shape, so there was no reason to ask for additional resources, initiate massive rescue operations, or beg for sustenance. Everything was stable.

It wasn't until 24 hours later, when the levees started to collaspe because of back prerssure and flooded the city, that things broke out into chaos. So, really, one has to actually look at the disaster as starting 2 days after the initial hurricane hit, and it's why the initial phase was so disorganized.

It's almost if the two occurances have to be looked at as completely separate disasters. It's not like rescuers waited until 4 days after Katrina to begin, it's that they began 2 days after the levees broke.

It's not an excuse for those who are obsessed with finding blame, but it does help explain much of what happened.

 

North America has the most destructive weather of any inhabited continent. In the United States, September is "National Disaster Preparedness Month.? The peak moth of hurricane season is September. The Red Cross has, for years, recommended a 3-5 days supply of water and nonperishable food be kept on hand.

A large city is a desert ? without electricity and continuous transport, water and food will be quickly consumed. Go to your local grocery. Look at how much non-perishable food and drink is available. Now imagine that is all that your neighborhood will have for at least several days. Is it enough? If not, get and implement a plan. And please remember, in this day and age, large-scale disasters can be manmade and occur nearly anywhere.

Of course, all this begs the questions: in a disaster, what is expected of a responsible citizen and what is the scope of the government?s responsibilities for its citizens?

 

An interesting piece about relief efforts going on in Biloxi and what the media is not bothering to report...

http://www.gulfcoastnews.com/GCNKatrina1.htm

Yancy

 

Well, I found this article interesting:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509020195sep02,1,1457842.story


GULF COAST CRISIS: THE RELIEF EFFORT: HURRICANE PROTECTION PROJECTS
Corps: Lack of funds did not contribute to flooding

By Andrew Martin and Andrew Zajac
Washington Bureau
Published September 2, 2005


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina.

In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.

However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and could not handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.

"I don't see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case," said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the corps. "Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place."

Strock also denied that escalating costs from the war in Iraq contributed to reductions in funding for hurricane projects in Louisiana, as some critics have suggested. Records show that corps funding for the Louisiana projects generally has decreased in recent years.

Several critics, including a former head of the Corps of Engineers, suggested in a Tribune story Thursday that the flooding in New Orleans could have been less severe had the federal government fully funded projects to improve the levees and drainage in the city.

Congress in 1999 authorized the corps to conduct a $12 million study to determine how much it would cost to protect New Orleans from a Category 5 hurricane, but the study is not scheduled to get under way until 2006. It was not clear why the study has taken so long to begin, though Congress has provided only in the range of $100,000 or $200,000 a year so far.

Al Naomi, senior project manager in the corps' New Orleans District, said it would cost as much as $2.5 billion to build such a system, which likely would include a massive network of gates to block the Gulf of Mexico from Lake Pontchartrain and additional levees. If the project were fully funded and started immediately, Naomi said it could be completed in three to five years.

A project to build up the levees to withstand a Category 3 hurricane was launched in 1965 after Hurricane Betsy and was supposed to be completed in 10 years, but it remains incomplete because of a lack of funding.

In recent years, funding has dropped precipitously, which some officials attributed in part to the escalating costs of the Iraq war. Funding for a drainage project in New Orleans went from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in the current fiscal year, while funding for such hurricane protection projects as levees around Lake Pontchartrain declined from $10 million in 2001 to $5.7 million this year, according to figures provided by the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

Funding for these projects generally has trended downward since at least the last years of the Clinton administration. Congressional records show that the levee work on Lake Pontchartrain received $23 million in 1998 and $16 million in 1999. It was not clear how much the drainage project received in 1998, but records show it received $75 million in 1999.

Neither the White House nor the Corps of Engineers would confirm the numbers, nor would they provide funding levels dating to previous administrations.

 

Hmm, that's weird, on the TV CNN anchors were screaming about lack of a Federal response... but according to this article (dated Tuesday), teams and supplies were already in place and being delivered to the affected areas.

"The federal government began rushing baby formula, communications equipment, generators, water and ice into hard-hit areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, along with doctors, nurses and first-aid supplies.

The U.S. Defense Department sent experts to help with search-and-rescue operations."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05242/562353.stm

Oh, that's right the Feds weren't getting shot at in Biloxi and Mobile... silly me.

Here's another good one, and it explains a lot:

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease_print.fema?id=18470

"FEMA, today urged all fire and emergency services departments not to respond to counties and states affected by Hurricane Katrina without being requested and lawfully dispatched by state and local authorities under mutual aid agreements and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.

?The response to Hurricane Katrina must be well coordinated between federal, state and local officials to most effectively protect life and property,? Brown said. ?We appreciate the willingness and generosity of our Nation?s first responders to deploy during disasters. But such efforts must be coordinated so that fire-rescue efforts are the most effective possible.?


This really speaks mountains to the issues in New Orleans... see within 24 hrs FEMA was on the ground and running in Mississippi and Alabama because state officials actually did their jobs and coordinated their activities and emergency plan. New Orleans on the other hand... well FEMA, was waiting, as were the National Guard, but they never got their orders... Whoops!

Yancy

 

FEMA officials were actually on the ground and trying to set up networks BEFORE the hurricane hit. In a news conference with President Bush yesterday it was released that teams were working BEFORE the hurricane hit and both MS and AL had everything in place before Katrina.

What's happened in New Orleans and LA can be surmised from there.

 

No doubt I'm just trying to shed some further light on the facts for those in the "blame Bush crowd".

Yup, FEMA was there on Saturday, the Red Cross had provided emergency evacuation packets with information about where to go for shelter before the hurricane. They also provide packs with 72hrs worth of food, water and other supplies for those that wanted them... unfortunately most people never showed up to get these items.


Yancy

 

I've been having that debate too. Everything that happens that's bad does not need to be laid directly at the President's feet and to do so is idiotic and only adds to the political posturing that's completely out of line at this place in time. That from someone who is taking refugees into my home and whose hubby has been deployed into the middle of the fray. God help us all.