FEMA's response after Katrina

[Guest bengalrick]

everyone (including myself) thought that FEMA fucked up royally... FEMA's job is to be a federal agency that cordinates organizations like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army... problem w/ that thinking, is the Red Cross WAS THERE!!! they were right out side the city and ready to have food, water, and hygene products for those at the convention center and the superdome... so you ask "why weren't they there then??".....

[url="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05246/565143.stm"]click here[/url]

[i]-As the National Guard delivered food to the New Orleans convention center yesterday (9/2/05), American Red Cross officials said that federal emergency management authorities would not allow them to do the same.[/i]


[i]-"The Homeland Security Department has requested and continues to request that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans," said Renita Hosler, spokeswoman for the Red Cross.[/i]

[i]"Right now access is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities. We have been at the table every single day [asking for access]. We cannot get into New Orleans against their orders."[/i]


and here is red cross's take on what they planned on doing, which coincides w/ what is being said:

[i]The Red Cross is mobilizing on all fronts to bring relief to storm victims. More than two hundred Red Cross shelters are housing thousands of residents who fled Katrina’s wrath. All available resources from across the country, including thousands of staff and volunteers are being moved to safe areas, so additional relief efforts can begin [b]immediately[/b] after the storm passes. More than 200 emergency response vehicles (ERVs) and countless other Red Cross resources are en route or on the scene to provide hot meals, snacks, bottled water and distribute other much-needed relief supplies. In coordination with the Southern Baptists, preparations have been made to provide more than 500,000 hot meals to storm-weary residents each day.[/i]


don't take this post the wrong way, i still partly blame bush for not stepping up quicker and taking over the situation as i've stated many times... but at the same time, why were people screaming "where is the food!!" and "why isn't FEMA helping"... well, there is your answer...

the department that stopped the Red Cross is actually the LA Homeland security department, so blanco had little to nothing to do w/ that particular situation...

[Jamie_B]

I wonder how much stuff that is being said right now is people trying to protect their jobs.

Edit: I never thought I'd be in agreement with Hillery, but her call for an independent commision to investagate all this is the right one.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:44 PM']I wonder how much stuff that is being said right now is people trying to protect their jobs.

[b]Edit: I never thought I'd be in agreement with Hillery, but her call for an independent commision to investagate all this is the right one.[/b]
[right][post="144536"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

as long as they focus on the whole picture, and not the federal response only... the federal level deserves blame, no question, but you have to ask a few question to yourself (everyone):

1. what would be the difference if governor blanco would have issued the mandatory evacuation 24 hours earlier, as Bush urged her to do??

2. what would be different, if the mayor would have provided a way for the handicapped and car-less people to get out of town??

3. what would have happened if a mandatory evacuation was never called for by the governor??

4. what would be different if the red cross (assuming they are telling the truth) was allowed to get into NO directly and giving most people the food and necessities they needed?? we could have differintiated between the "needy" and the "greedy" as far as looting is concerned..

there are many questions we must ask...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:52 PM'][b]as long as they focus on the whole picture, and not the federal response only[/b]... the federal level deserves blame, no question, but you have to ask a few question to yourself (everyone):

1. what would be the difference if governor blanco would have issued the mandatory evacuation 24 hours earlier, as Bush urged her to do??

2. what would be different, if the mayor would have provided a way for the handicapped and car-less people to get out of town??

3. what would have happened if a mandatory evacuation was never called for by the governor??

4. what would be different if the red cross (assuming they are telling the truth) was allowed to get into NO directly and giving most people the food and necessities they needed?? we could have differintiated between the "needy" and the "greedy" as far as looting is concerned..

there are many questions we must ask...
[right][post="144539"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Agreed.

[sean]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:52 PM']as long as they focus on the whole picture, and not the federal response only... the federal level deserves blame, no question, but you have to ask a few question to yourself (everyone):



2. what would be different, if the mayor would have provided a way for the handicapped and car-less people to get out of town??






[right][post="144539"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


They were running their buses non-stop to shelters for FREE the day before Katrina hit. It's the mayors fault that they didn't have enough food and water at the shelters, but he ordered evacuation and provided the means.

[ChicagoBengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:44 PM']I wonder how much stuff that is being said right now is people trying to protect their jobs.

Edit: I never thought I'd be in agreement with Hillery, [b]but her call for an independent commision to investagate all this is the right one[/b].
[right][post="144536"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Is there [i]really[/i] such a thing as an independent commission. I guess I'm a bit skeptical, but for the most part, there's always going to be someone with an agenda to back. I do agree in principal, however, with your opinion, Jamie.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='sean' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:23 PM']They were running their buses non-stop to shelters for FREE the day before Katrina hit. It's the mayors fault that they didn't have enough food and water at the shelters, but he ordered evacuation and provided the means.
[right][post="144571"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

oh... i didn't think they did... do you have a link for that??

i was talking about the school buses, which are supposed to be part of the evacuation plan... but if they were providing buses at all, then i may need to rethink that aspect...

[Jason]

I heard about that too. I wonder what our liberal friends think about that? Not a peep from them in this thread yet.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='ChicagoBengal' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:24 PM']Is there [i]really[/i] such a thing as an independent commission.  I guess I'm a bit skeptical, but for the most part, there's always going to be someone with an agenda to back.  I do agree in principal, however, with your opinion, Jamie.
[right][post="144574"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


i can't remember exactly who it was (i think O'Reilly) but they said yesturday that the best thing to do, would be to get 5 retired generals to do the investigation, considering they are usually not very political... it seemed like a good idea... your right, if they get 10 rep's and 10 dem's, i feel like each side will just give and take... "if you don't put that in there, we won't put this in there".. it could be a whitewash and useless...

[sean]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:26 PM']oh... i didn't think they did... do you have a link for that??

i was talking about the school buses, which are supposed to be part of the evacuation plan... but if they were providing buses at all, then i may need to rethink that aspect...
[right][post="144575"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[url="http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL082705nagin.b7724856.html"]link[/url]

I also heard some evacuees calling in to 700WLW and stating that the buses came around the day before it hit for free.

[ChicagoBengal]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:33 PM']i can't remember exactly who it was (i think O'Reilly) but they said yesturday that the best thing to do, would be to get 5 retired generals to do the investigation, considering they are usually not very political... it seemed like a good idea... your right, if they get 10 rep's and 10 dem's, i feel like each side will just give and take... "if you don't put that in there, we won't put this in there".. it could be a whitewash and useless...
[right][post="144581"][/post][/right][/quote]
It's worrying me Rick that you and I are seeing eye to eye on things lately I say we apply for the job of independent investigators and demand a hefty consulting fee.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='sean' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:47 PM'][url="http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL082705nagin.b7724856.html"]link[/url]

I also heard some evacuees calling in to 700WLW and stating that the buses came around the day before it hit for free.
[right][post="144592"][/post][/right][/quote]

huh... well, one less black mark for mayor nagan... i am starting to think (besides bitching and crying on the radio) that he is getting a really bad rap, when he isn't the most to blame... though, one thing i've heard from some in NO, is that they didn't even know there was a mandatory evac... there should have been someone going door to door or at least a bullhorn, and explaining to people that don't watch or don't have a tv, that they really need to get the fuck out quickly...

and it seemed that all the buses didn't run after the storm hit, but i could be wrong on that too...

i heard something on a talk radio show the day before that said there was a fire chief somewhere else that went door to door, and told them they should leave... if they said they were riding it out, he took out an oil marker and told them to write their name on their left arm and SSN on the right so they could figure out who they were if they did die... that would definately work

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='ChicagoBengal' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:55 PM']It's worrying me Rick that you and I are seeing eye to eye on things lately I say we apply for the job of independent investigators and demand a hefty consulting fee.
[right][post="144596"][/post][/right][/quote]

moderation, my man, moderation

[ChicagoBengal]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:58 PM']moderation, my man, moderation
[right][post="144599"][/post][/right][/quote]
I pride myself on moderation my friend - unless it involves food and alcohol, and then that credo goes right out the window.

[Beaker]

Oh no., someone else is complaining...better appoint a commission to investigate it.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:33 PM']i can't remember exactly who it was (i think O'Reilly) but they said yesturday that the best thing to do, would be to get 5 retired generals to do the investigation, considering they are usually not very political... it seemed like a good idea... your right, if they get 10 rep's and 10 dem's, i feel like each side will just give and take... "if you don't put that in there, we won't put this in there".. it could be a whitewash and useless...
[right][post="144581"][/post][/right][/quote]


I like that idea about the Generals, generally they dont BS, Bung what's your father doing these days?

[Guest steggyD]

We need to stop looking for blame so much, instead look for what went wrong logistic wise. I think the commission would look too much into who to blame, sounds like shit to me.

We should figure out what would make things better, and come up with plans for emergency situations around the country. Use the money that would be spent on a commission for emergency contingency plans.

[sean]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:55 PM']We need to stop looking for blame so much, instead look for what went wrong logistic wise. I think the commission would look too much into who to blame, sounds like shit to me.

We should figure out what would make things better, and come up with plans for emergency situations around the country. Use the money that would be spent on a commission for emergency contingency plans.


[right][post="144688"][/post][/right][/quote]


Isn't that FEMA's job?

[Homer_Rice]

Somewhere somebody is putting together a timeline of events. Right now things are still a tad incoherent.

We'll find out most of what happened, and when we do, I'd bet that heads will roll.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Sep 8 2005, 10:28 PM']Somewhere somebody is putting together a timeline of events. Right now things are still a tad incoherent.

We'll find out most of what happened, and when we do, I'd bet that heads will roll.
[right][post="144705"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Agreed, and if they dont and excused are made and politics played Ill be pissed.

[Guest #22]

Why anyone still trusts the American Red Cross after they stole 9/11 money is beyond me.

[Guest bengalrick]

[img]http://www.blindmanphoto.com/images/Stop-Blaming-FEMA.jpg[/img]

[Guest bengalrick]

[url="http://nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?ei=5094&en=29839ee3ffe8c2ba&hp=&ex=1126238400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1126237093-s7Plw8PYGIUOM4WbdL+n4Q"]nytimes.com[/url]

interesting article... i had never heard of the insurrection... its sounding like (according to this article) the polarization of the country right now led to the president reluctant to take the helm of the situation...


[i]September 9, 2005
[b]Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop Aid[/b]
By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
and THOM SHANKER

This article was reported and written by Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - [b]As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.[/b]

[b]For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort.[/b]

Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control. The debate was triggered as officials began to realize that Hurricane Katrina exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior homeland security officials, the hurricane showed the failure of their plan to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated and unable to act quickly until reinforcements arrive on the scene.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

[b]To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Governor Blanco would have resisted surrendering control of the military relief mission as Bush Administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. While troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.[/b]

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

[b]"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.[/b]

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.
[b]
"I need everything you have got," Governor Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Tuesday, when New Orleans flooded. In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that. I thought that I had requested everything they had," she said. "We were living in a war zone by then."[/b]

The governor illustrated her stance when, overnight Friday, she rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana Guard.

Also at issue was whether active-duty troops could respond faster and in larger numbers than National Guard soldiers.

By last Wednesday, Pentagon officials said even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours - could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops, which are specially trained and equipped for civilian law enforcement duties. In the end, the flow of thousands of National Guard soldiers, especially military police, was accelerated from other states.

"I was there. I saw what needed to be done," Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview. "They were the fastest, best-capable, most appropriate force to get there in the time allowed. And that's what it's all about."
[b]
But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying that 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg in North Carolina on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.[/b]
[b]
But the call never came, in part because military officials believed National Guard troops would get there faster and because administration civilians were worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters, administration officials said.[/b]

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the director of operations for the military's Joint Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials in advance of an approaching hurricane.

The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time the hurricane reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and Marines to the scene.

After the hurricane passed New Orleans and the levees broke, flooding the city, it became increasingly evident that disaster response efforts were badly bogged down.

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

The issue of federalizing the response was one of a number of legal issues considered in a flurry of meetings at the Justice Department, the White House and other agencies, administration officials said.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to assist local authorities. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government did possess authority to move in even over the objection of local officials.

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor's objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, according to administration officials. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.
[b]
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Governor Blanco said her state troops were missed. "Over the last year we have had about 5,000 out, at one time," Governor Blanco said. "They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor."[/b]

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

Homeland Security officials say that the experience with Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation's plans to handle disaster.

"This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties," Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested the active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon's leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans should be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

[b]The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local "first responders," including civilian police and the National Guard.[/b]

At a news conference Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said: "The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood, requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe. And that's one in which we are using the military, still within the framework of the law, to come in and really handle the evacuation, handle all of the associated elements. And that, of course, frees the National Guard up to do a security mission."

[b]Mr. McHale, while agreeing with the problem, offered different remedies. "It is foreseeable to envision a catastrophic explosion that would kill virtually every police officer within miles of the attack," he said. "Therefore we are going to have to reexamine our ability to back-fill first responder capabilities that may be degraded or destroyed during the initial event."[/b]

[b]He continued, "What we now have to look toward is perhaps a regional capability, probably within the civilian sector, that can be deployed to a city when that city's infrastructure and first responder capability has been destroyed by the event itself."[/b]

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker reported from Washington, and Eric Lipton from Baton Rouge, La., for this article. David Johnston contributed reporting.[/i]


i think this article shines some light on the situation...

like homer said, the facts are mirky right now, and when the facts are finally facts, heads will roll... as they should...

[Guest #22]

The MAIN political issue is this:
We don't have money to adequately deal with both.
Will Bush continue spending money in Iraq, or will most of the funds go to the rebuilding of New Orleans?


What are the priorities for this administration?

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='#22' date='Sep 9 2005, 12:35 AM']The MAIN political issue is this:
We don't have money to adequately deal with both.
Will Bush continue spending money in Iraq, or will most of the funds go to the rebuilding of New Orleans?
What are the priorities for this administration?
[right][post="144785"][/post][/right][/quote]


Yeah, it's just that simple isn't it?