Help Lizard Breath Save Bush from Hurricane Katrina

In the Hurricane Katrina thread some people began criticizing fed inaction to the developing crisis. It was perhaps premature, and any way not the right time, to start pointing fingers. And there is no question that blame will certainly hit local figures regardless of political affilitiation, so the feds are not totally to blame here. But amazingly there were attempts to defend federal inaction in general and protect Bush in specific.Monk tried to defend the inaction by playing off federal involvement as restricted in nature. Thus Bush's hands were tied until the state or city asks for help. Lizard Breath tried to play it off as if Bush had been on the ball all along and was doing his very best (as best as anyone else could do).It seems to me that what is happening is that true believers are yet again rushing to the defense of a lame president.Back on 911 where we had video footage of a man freezing up like a deer caught in the headlights at the most crucial moments in our recent history, the true believers spun that as a heroic act of courage sacrificing precious time in order to keep a class of children calm. Then in the resulting pursuit of AQ and "terrorists", he diverted valuable resources to Iraq on pretexts that are very well published, yet the true believers have spun it that he was really doing this as a way to spread democracy. Now we have days of inaction, and pretty well admitted ignorance of the crisis, yet true believers see this guy as doing his heroic best against red tape and logistics.Thus Bush has become to me, the origami president. He folds easily under pressure, but in skilled hands changes from a crumpled mass into some new and pretty thing to behold. But whatever the shape he is still a paper sham, at best a paper tiger.We can leave all the previous misteps aside, and focus on Katrina. I want to see clear evidence of Bush's genius and heroic acts, and of what actually hindered his herculean efforts. No spinning. Just facts. Times, regulations, etc...I will end by addressing LB's final statements to me in the other thread so as to drive what I am looking for. Was the US under threat of a nuclear attack? And even if so, where would the most pressing need be for amphibious craft be if the detonations occured at the same time as the hurricane was sweeping, or had just swept through?I want to see evidence that Bush had a credible reason not to have craft ready to be sent to that region as needed, in the face of an oncoming hurricane in a flood prone region. I want to see evidence that he ordered his general to draw up plans and that it their fault for having wasted time, or that the task was so onerous, they could not have resources in place within 2-3 days of the hurricane hitting. It wasn't just rain. An entire city has been wiped out. If he does not understand that a natural disaster can be as bad as anything a human can produce, then he is in sad shape. In any case, please show what threats required him to not prepare emergancy measures. So his generals were gambling that levees would not breech under conditions the scientific community had been warning about for years, and which in other parts of the US had been breached by human activity? What were those odds?An entire major US city was being evacuated (a historical event) and they did not expect large scale looting? They figured it would be business as usual? Who were these generals, and why did the president not realize that their estimates were way off? How is that not the President's fault? I'm sorry, but how much is the war in Iraq costing us every day? The idea that preparation to protect an entire city from actual destruction would cost a few million a day, suddenly doesn't seem so extreme. Please give me figures of how much it would have cost and compare that to Iraq debts.Anyone else that would like to defend the president in his hours of need, please jump in with evidence to explain his lack of action on the ground.

I absolutely agree. I am critical of more than just conservatives as well. My point was that Bush is now being singled out for protection. It seems as if blame can fall on everyone except for him, which is patently absurd.It is clear that he, among others, needs to be held accountable for his part in creating this tragedy. It is unfortunate that true believers of Bush have already begun their spin to talk away what is quite apparent... he screwed up. This is true and I agree. Much of the planning and longterm prevention issues do not fall on Bush's head. Well to be honest if he was busy reinventing national security agencies to prepare for calamities, then there is a good portion that can come his way, but the main onus that is connected to him, is response.Whether everything or nothing had been put in place over the years to deal with flooding/subsidence problems along coasts and rivers, there was still the capability or managing rescue resources should problems arise. That the resources are there now points out that we do in fact have resources to respond.Timeliness from federal agencies (and this involves more than just FEMA) rests with the president.I don't mean this thread to suggest that I think Bush is the ultimate bad guy in this. I am only trying to point out that people are already preparing his escape from any blame and that is wrong.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Since I am a state over federal power type of guy, I am one to hold local heads to more account than nonlocal heads. However this was not just a local issue and had to involve or would potentially involve feds. As it was that from the outset, I do count him as one of the main people to be held accountable. Same for me. I think that is a sign of true leadership, which of course suggests why I have been repeatedly disappointed by this president. He has pointed to anyone but himself, which makes me ask what I think is the next obvious question... why do we need him?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well to be more correct with your analogy, shouldn't we then divert our military to bomb some obscure creek somewhere, designated by Bush and Co as a major "fountain" of water related emergencies?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry but this does not work as an explanation of macroscale issues. You are giving a very select view, which itself does not mean much. Here is a link to CNN's report on Katrina. You can visit the Timeline there titled "Katrina's days of devastation". In that Timeline you will find this order of events:Aug 25- Katrina becomes Cat 1 and causes damage in Fla.Aug 26- Kat goes to Cat 2, prediction that it will reach Cat 4 before reaching landfall in MS or LA. Both governors declare a state of emergency.Aug 27- Kat goes to Cat 3, LA begins evacuation. Pres Bush declares a state of emergency in LA. Here is where you should begin. Besides "declaring" that, what efforts are made to "prepare" for potential crises?Aug 28- Kat reaches 4 and 5. NO ordered to evacuate. Bush declares emergency in MS, and orders federal assistance. Great, what preparations were being made for assistance?Aug 29- Kat reduces to 4 storm, and hits MS and LA, before reducing to tropical storm. You claim that at this time you began "grooming" on your own. What preps are being ordered?Aug 30- NO begins to bear brunt of damage as levees break, including power/food shortages. US military begins to move planes and ships into the region at request of FEMA. This fits in with your description where you began prepping according to FEMA request.Aug 31- Pres Bush does a fly by... then announces a major mobilization to help victims. Sorry, this is the timeline.Sep 1- Violence and devastation continue. DHS makes support announcement below request from Gov. I get the idea that your units may very well have been delayed based on winds and clearing debris from runways. This is when you become involved, correct?Sep 2- Pres makes more press flights, signs relief bill, and convoys arrive at convention center.Sep 3- ACOE brings in generators and pumps. Horse hockey. Once he was allowed to take the field? First of all, who was holding him back? What on earth could possibly hold back a man that invaded a nation preemptively, from getting this disaster prepped preemptively? Second, this is a reverse of your earlier statements which suggested that everything was running according to a schedule and that it was logistics that were the holdup.Now take a look at that timeline up above. It was back on the 25th that Bush should have had concern that things might not go well, and by the 26th there was no question. For a man that invades nations on pretexts that dangers might form 5-10 years down the line, why would a declaration of a state of emergency within the nation not come with concrete orders for prep?And this does not mean just giant airlifts. Given that it was a large hurricane it is obvious that landing fields would be compromised. This means that ships, amphibious vehicles, and helicoptors (from both land and sea positions) would be more useful for beginning operations.And this does not mean just food and water. Generators and pumps would be crucial, and not afterthoughts as it appears to be the case here. Same for the creation of federal command and control facilities so that the pres can get info in real time, as well as working as a backup for possible failure of local control facilities. Same for the preparation of armed security forces for deployment as needed given the potential for not just civil, but terrorist action.On that last point I am still awaiting any response. Given that as historical fact, levees have been sabotaged in the US to create vast problems, how was that not seen as a very real possibility? The administration continues to claim that they could not have suspected both a hurricane and a levee break, when one could naturally lead tp the other anyway, and more importantly if we are all so concerned about terrorism and possible terrorist actions that is an obvious one.And of course one could also expect terrorist attacks on responders or those caught in the hurricane's effects. So I don't buy your argument they couldn't expect average US citizens to act as they did, shooting at rescuers and looting. Regardless of what we think US citizens are capable DHS and FEMA are supposed to be taking into consideration what our enemies might do to us during an emergency. Right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, elder Bush and Clinton called for the same thing. You think that this is actually going to focus on mistakes made at all levels, including this administration?Why will this not follow the standard he has set for all previous investigations, which is that he and his office cannot come under scrutiny and a scapegoat must be found elsewhere?The fact that you say he will find the answers and make "2nd half" adjustments speaks volumes. It of course means that it will not be an independent inquiry of which he might be found blameworthy. But I'm sure he'll make some half-assed adjustments, just like he did post 911 and Iraq intel fiascos.Why you continue supporting this man when the facts are in your face, I have no clue. I did not start out against him. I started out vaguely for him. But his actions (or rather inactions and failures) are consistent and obvious at this point in time.Why is this one single man so important to be seen as a flawless demigod?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Tal, did you even read the OP? How about some of my other posts on this topic? How can this be political hackery "all the way" when:1) I am not a democrat and so have no political reason to fight a republican,2) I have already stated that blame will most certainly hit others, especially democrats (as they are the local officials and they did screw up), including dems during the Clinton administration (perhaps Clinton as well). I mean heck I even suggested that Clinton's call for an investigation could end up skipping over him as a target.3) I set out that there was a screw up on all levels, and was merely addressing/asking why there were some people rushing to defend one specific person. Remember I did not start this blame game. This started in another thread and I took no part in it until I saw people rushing to defend Bush for inaccurate reasons. The thread ended and I started this one to ask people to present real evidence for their defense. I truly dislike Bush. There can be no question about it. But what's inaccurate is to act like my current dislike for him was partisan in nature, that it was always the case, and that I blame him for everything because of my dislike.While I did not find him very bright, I found him personable and less offensive than Al Gore. Going into the 2000 election I did not want Al Gore to win, and did not care if Bush did. And as I have said numerous times to you I am not a democrat so would have no reason to have wanted him not to win based on partisan politics.In fact, I agreed with some of his planks that were in direct contradiction to dem standards and the Gore platform. They were traditional rep standards. I was also hopeful with rumors of Colin Powell being in his administration. I had a very very deep respect for Colin Powell.It has been his performance, including breaking the very promises he made along traditional republican lines, which pissed me off. His inability to accept responsibility has been astounding, though much more astounding to me has been so called conservatives giving him a white wash as he blatantly breaks long time standards. The OP is specifically critical of the fact that so called conservatives rush to reinvent Bush every time he clearly stumbles and falls.Despite my disgust with him and how he has run this nation, he is not completely to blame for everything, nor does he do everything wrong. Sometimes I even agree with his decisions... including some of his controversial ones. Maybe you missed them because you don't want to see them but they are there. Don't talk like you are a conservative, much less that you speak for them. Haven't you noticed that some conservatives are criticizing what happened in NO, and did lay some of the blame with Bush? Not to mention I hold some conservative values, so I am in part a conservative. Its called a joke. Maybe you don't like it, but it contributes nothing as evidence that the OP is political hackery based on mere hate of Bush.So please address the OP. Some people simply love Bush and excuse every single mistake he makes. Case in point, errors were clearly made in response to hurricane Katrina. Whether they are minimal compared to errors made at the local level or by other fed administrators is besides the point. There was obviously a lack of foresight and a slow response to the emerging crisis. Yet members have rushed to his defense, yet gave no critical info to support their claims. If you have a defense, support the claims with some evidence.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is a serious issue. Should people be allowed to build within flood plains, and tidal plains? If we as a community agree that they should, it would seem that the community has a responsibility to protect them.If you remember 10 years ago the same thing occured, but in flood plains. Thankfully it did not hit a major city, but sure as hell hit croplands. Do you like food? Should we be farming as much as possible, including in flood plains? Hmmmm. It is not necessarily inevitable as the Dutch have proven over the last 40+ years. It would also not necessarily be the President's fault if it did happen. My OP and none of my posts have indicated that all, or even most, of this issue rests on his head. Tell that to the people of Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and almost everyone in Israel.If you have a problem with people living in flood plains, how about people that live where there are frequent tornados (tornado alley), how about any coastal area subject to storms (regardless of flooding), how about earthquakes, how about forest fires, etc etc etc?Generally most people live where some major environmental catastrophe can occur and will at some point in time. Why are you picking on one group? This was in one of my posts, and I had a question attached to it. Guess this just goes to show you aren't reading my posts.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-07-2005 02:32 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Tal, schraf asked if you were going to respond to the OP. You said you didn't have to because blah blah blah. I then quoted your blah blah blah in my response. So if you only meant the non OP posts, that's fine, but then that means you were not answering schraf's question. There may be fishing, but that does not stop it from being a desert. From what I understand the farmland is almost entirely land reclaimed from the desert, just like LA and LV. That is they put in a lot of money to alter the landscape (like we do with levees). You may correct me if I am wrong on that but that's what the Israelis have been claiming for some time now... it was a desert until they changed it. You totally avoided dealing with my argument. I agree that people choose to live where they live, and people who live in flood plains (coastal or other) are taking risks. I wouldn't call it "fault", but "risk".Now deal with the argument I provided to you. No matter where one lives there is almost some measure, sometimes a great measure or risk from natural disaster. Unfortunately that is life. And so people are forced to choose the nature and level of risk they wish to face.If you really wanted to remove flood risk then many farming communities would be gone. Tornado risk, same deal. The list goes on. What you need to do is define what risk is unacceptable to either allow people to live there, or provide protection for them. That's funny, how much did WE (notice that is WE) have to pay fatcats, including a Bush clan member, from the savings and loan bailout. Suddenly people who voluntarily put money at risk to make money, stole other people's money and lost it, and we had to pay them back.So what's the big deal if we pay for people that actually face a natural disaster or terrorist attack?And by the way, there is something rather cowardly in your position. It seems you are arguing against humans controlling their environment to reclaim land and improve their condition. Sure people could always keep retreating, but they don't have to.One might also note that Louisiana's problems were not static, but growing due to subsidence, which was pretty much a direct result of a Army Corps of Engineer's screw up. One would think the people deserve some amount of protection and payback for an error made by the federal gov't which they did not have control over.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wait a minute, were you seriously punking on my comment regarding Bush's failure to act after receiving news that a second plane had hit the WTC?That video tape of him getting the news and looking stunned, while carrying on with a press op, when the US is under attack, has absolutely no defense. It is not "moore-like" criticism at all. The man, regardless of any of his other qualities, was clearly lacking in leadership skills.In much much much less time than that, I was communicating with anyone and everyone I could so that they would be alerted to what was going on. He was the top person in this nation, and so held up national response.When Pearl Harbor was attacked, would it have been acceptable for any of the men, especially the leaders, to wait 7 minutes as the attack went on?Contrary to your earlier description of 7 minutes being very short, that is actually a very long time in a crisis. This is where the leaders get separated from the chaff. In those seven minutes you could watch him slowly floating to the floor. Chaff.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hey, I'll let you argue with the Israelis. Every time Palestinians discuss their land, Israeli leaders almost invariably bring up that it was nothing but desert until jews (and later Israelis) converted it to farm use.I have read a little on their land reclamation works and I think it is one of the great things that Israel has accomplished. Here is a link to a discussion of their reclamation of the Negev desert.Big clue as to why Israel and Egypt look different. Israel has lots of money coming in to improve the land, and has so for some time. They have advanced a long way in that field. Egypt has not. Here is a link to a new and ongoing project between Israel and Egypt to help Egyptians reclaim their lands from the desert. Perhaps some day you will not see such a dramatic difference. You've never heard of the massive Savings and Loan bailout of the 1980's? Okay, with just a quick search I came up with this link. I cannot say one way or the other if this site is biased in any way, but the general facts about how the bailout was handled (including amounts) is correct. The article appropriately skewers dems as well, so my thought is it isn't too biased. Here is a short excerpt to compare to what 911 and this hurricane might cost people... Oh yeah and about the Bush connection... Please don't give me sob stories about poor people and communities getting money after disasters hit, when the rich bail themselves out of risky money ventures that go south. I agree that the gov't, especially the fed gov't is not the answer for everything. However when we have the capability of preventing and alleviating the harm of natural and manmade disasters, then it seems that a large and centralized system would be the best way to handle these needs.I'm not sure exactly how much went to 911 victims, and what that money went for. If you have real stats I would like to see them. I would agree that 1.9 million for every survivor is a bit much, but then look at what the investors and bank owners got in the S&L bailout.I find your position massively ironic, when the entire Iraq War is now being excused, including by you, as a bailout of poor people in an impoverished and downtrodden nation. Instead of physical levees, we are installing democracy to protect them and others in the region. Of course how many projects along the lines of levee systems will we pay for during our reconstruction of their country? Isn't it their "fault" for choosing to live there? I am unaware of the crachheads in specific, but I did not need to be, and this goes back to what I already suggested was part of their screw up. About ten years ago we had massive flooding in the upper MS river. At that time, and that was without fears of terrorists trying to make things worse, noncrackheads were breaking levees. So yes I knew, and anyone else should have known, that the probability was high that the levees might be breached somewhere. It is historical record.That is not to mention the degree of lawlessness seen in Indonesia's Tsunami. The size of this storm and potentials for flooding should have had thinkers making comparisons when drawing up plans.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So does masturbation, oral, and anal sex. Not one person has ever, nor could ever get pregnant through those activities.Of course what was being discussed was education. Abstinence education has not worked everytime. Not only do some people slide, leaving them back in the same boat as before the abstinence training, but some people when they finally reach the family stage are wholly ignorant of the safe sex techniques they will still need to employ.Choosing when to engage in sex is an issue steeped in moral values (including religious ones). How to have safe sex is simply a physical description which one uses in conjunction with the personal moral values.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are correct. Everything you said in your post is a fallacy. But lets not get into this here. Everyone please return to Katrina. Someone open a thread on sex education and shift this debate there. Thank you.And yes, I know I started contributing to the diversion myself. I was wrong.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I hope it wasn't me. Did I say something like that?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I want to thank you for providing that definition. Now please never call me "left-wing" again. I mean I really don't think its bad to be left or right, but I am not either in a strict way, and certainly do not believe gov't is the solution to all your problems.But again I point out the irony, the Iraq War's premise is that gov't is the solution to all your problems. Maybe now you can understand why people with conservative positions actually can dislike the Iraq War. If you worked in the army then you made all your money from from the gov't, and thus the taxpayer. That would be just like the people employed to build and maintain levee systems. Your poor logic skills, and grasp of basic science, does not suggest that wherever you went "worked" for you. Although this seems like an ad hominem it really isn't. You seem to avoid logic in your arguments (or analyzing your citations), and repeatedly mischaracterize scientific theories. The same can and should be said for corporate welfare. The singular difference is that when poor people get money from the gov't, the money ends back in the economy as they spend as much as they get. Wealthy and corporate recipients use their benefits to create personal wealth to remove money from the economy. It sure as hell does happen. In fact in Chicago there was a scandal when a person died outside of a hospital because he was not covered and so they could not admit him. In the end it was decided no one was at fault because that is how the system works.I will add that I was poor for a very long time and also quite ill. I could not get ANY of the tests required to diagnose my condition. Without coverage there was nothing that could be done until possibly I was on the verge of death.You might want to ask how much we end up having to pay as a whole by having to treat the poor in emergency settings only (if and when we treat them), rather than in preventative ways. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that.It also seems a bit silly to be the only first world nation (except Holland as of January) to not have a socialized medical system. The proof is in, and they really do work.As it is the system we have is the same, except with higher prices, and no guarantee that the central location you pay for your "medical insurance" will in fact pay for your costs when you become ill, if in fact you can afford insurance in the first place.Socialized medicine is not an argument that gov't is an answer to people's problems, but a benefit we can give ourselves so that illness does not become financially debilitating. Its choosing a single, noncommerical HMO, which inherently reduces costs and provides better coverage.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)