Federal Response - TV versus Reality

[ExiledInIllinois]

Absolutely not. I don't take it personally. I just don't get a good feel that a lot of people from many different perspectives have a good idea of what the federal government is DESIGNED to provide in an emergency management role vs. what was "expected". All the "set piece" stuff is working pretty well. It's the ad hoc that had to be developed on the fly that is at issue. Consequence Management is a multi-layered system and approach. There are things broke that need fixing, but I'm still of the mind that if the system worked as designed, with both NO and LA doing their part, this would not be the controversy it has become. A regional consequence management plan should involve more than throwing one's hands in the air and screaming help. OK, Shephard Smith was at the Superdome. Whoopie. It's a lot easier to get a reporter, a producer and a camera man into something than it is a battalion and a few hundred tons of supplies. Doing anything short of that in that particular, unique situation could well have caused more rioting, lawlessness and death. Just a thought on my part, but I might weigh the value of dropping a pallet or two of water into 20,000 people already at the crazy point with the expected result vs waiting a day or two and going in with some sort of rational plan to assist everyone. I don't think many are truly grasping how bad the "security" issues were in those first couple of days. There were a lot of people absolutely NOT willing to step up and help their fellow man. People are not necessarily good, or willing to act civilized in a disaster.

439236[/snapback]

 

Fair enough Bib... Very well said.

 

I realized what a security mess it was. That is why I can't fathom the political neglect of the levee system. I am still freaking out about these issues today. I just hope they begin to take a long, hard look at what makes America tick.

 

Things get mired in the silly here to the VERY SILLY.

 

NOLA being a big city had a lot to do with that.

[SilverNRed]

Unfortunately for Bush Bashers, none of them seem to have the first idea of what is involved in this type of response, or what is supposed to happen - let alone what is possible, but go on ahead and have at it. It apparantly makes y'all feel better.

439164[/snapback]

When it comes to disaster response, you don't need any experience to be an expert and talk about how "clueless" the President is.

 

Amazing how many people are spouting off about what the end result of the first few days should have been but have exactly zero idea what would have been necessary to bring that end result about.

[1billsfan]

So, in the "first few days" we should have been able to drain all the flooded areas and have "immediate" help by way of thousands of troops on the ground?  Yeah, that's realistic. 

439257[/snapback]

 

 

Exaggerate much? As for your second question, yes.

[Ghost of BiB]

I tried bringing up that point but was told by an "expert" that there were National Guard on the ground to provide enough security to prevent said riot... 

439250[/snapback]

 

Without an adequate sized force also trained in crowd control, I think it possible we could have seen a Kent State x 10. That not only would have been a further and worse tragedy, but I can only imagine the nation's response after film at 11. I don't say that from the perspective of "making things look good", so don't even start, anyone. The damage to the psyche of the country would be very severe were that to happen. It's probably better to point fingers and shout that Bush hates black people because order and supplies weren't on hand than it is to have outnumbered guardsmen gunning them down during a riot.

[SilverNRed]

Exaggerate much? As for your second question, yes.

439372[/snapback]

Uh huh, so it's realistic to get thousands of troops into a flooded, underwater city "immediately"? It's amazing how much you know about all this. You must be an expert when it comes to troop deployment and the military.

 

It's been the most successful rescue operation in world history and you still find room to complain. Amazing, but not unexpected.

 

"Do it faster. ummmmmm.....somehow....."

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Let me get this straight...you're defending Ron Brown now? Oh boy.

 

On-the-job training for a Director of FEMA........hmmmmmmmmm. Doesn't really seem like such a wise decision now, does it.

439163[/snapback]

 

Mike Brown.

 

No, it wasn't a wise decision. But it was a decision made two years ago, and I don't recall you having a problem with it then. I'm not defending anyone; I'm arguing against your bull sh-- reasoning that someone with two years' experience has no experience.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Exaggerate much? As for your second question, yes.

439372[/snapback]

 

Do you have any idea what it takes to move that many people in an organized fashion into a region that can't support them? For starters, you have to recon every road you'd send them down to make sure they're passable, and inspect every bridge they'd cross to make sure they're not so damaged they'd collapse under the weight of loaded trucks. Route reconnaissance doesn't even get done "immediately". Then there's packing...when you've got to pack up not only a battalion of men but everything needed to support them, plus relief supplies, it's non-trivial problem that doesn't get solved "immediately". And we're talking about the National Guard, as well...state entities that are not standing units and have to be called up, formed up, and organized before anything can get done. That doesn't happen "immediately" either.

 

And that's just the obvious stuff that an over-educated geek like me can think of off the top of his head. Sean Penn didn't even think of THAT much...which is why he got there quickly and accomplished little more than bailing out his boat. Imagine if Penn had been in charge of, instead of three people, three hundred, and went in with such sh------- planning. Imagine what a cluster-!@#$ that would have been. And that's what you advocate?

[sweet baboo]

Bottom line again is it all goes back to the levees and the darn things breaking.

 

I am still gonna contend that they should have never broke.

 

i'd say the majority of civil engineers that have studied the NO disaster would disagree with your contention

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

i'd say the majority of civil engineers that have studied the NO disaster would disagree with your contention

439446[/snapback]

 

Actually, his contention isn't necessarily that they shouldn't have broke as they were. I believe it's more "They shouldn't have broke, if they'd been properly maintained and upgraded over the past several decades."

 

Which I have to say is a very valid point.

[sweet baboo]

touche

[SilverNRed]

Which I have to say is a very valid point.

439450[/snapback]

It might be the most valid point and the least reported.

[Ghost of BiB]

It might be the most valid point and the least reported.

439460[/snapback]

 

Should, coulda, woulda.

 

I don't say that to be a prick, but there are probably thousands of parallels. Hopefully, we don't get slapped again before the next hundred billion dollar disaster hits. I don't put this on the executive branch as much as I put it on the state and congress. All are concentrating on New Orleans right now. I don't think that I've seen anyone whosoever mention that there's a lot more to the country than New Orleans. Appropriations don't come from the President, whether his name is Hoover, Truman, Carter, Ford, Clinton or Bush. Money gets spent on flavor of the month, and who can deal the best. Speaking of money, I haven't looked it up yet, but I wonder what New Orleans has done with their "Homeland Defense - Emergency Response" money they got from the federal government. Might have bought a few porta-johns and some MRE's? When one wants to look at overall costs, that kind of stuff is less than pocket change. I really hope someone does their homework on that one. Scotty should have beamed in the 82nd Airborne 10 minutes after the storm hit, but when you decide you are going to put 20,000 people into a football stadium as your "plan" you better be able to feed and water them.

[1billsfan]

Do you have any idea what it takes to move that many people in an organized fashion into a region that can't support them?  For starters, you have to recon every road you'd send them down to make sure they're passable, and inspect every bridge they'd cross to make sure they're not so damaged they'd collapse under the weight of loaded trucks.  Route reconnaissance doesn't even get done "immediately".  Then there's packing...when you've got to pack up not only a battalion of men but everything needed to support them, plus relief supplies, it's non-trivial problem that doesn't get solved "immediately".  And we're talking about the National Guard, as well...state entities that are not standing units and have to be called up, formed up, and organized before anything can get done.  That doesn't happen "immediately" either.

 

And that's just the obvious stuff that an over-educated geek like me can think of off the top of his head.  Sean Penn didn't even think of THAT much...which is why he got there quickly and accomplished little more than bailing out his boat.  Imagine if Penn had been in charge of, instead of three people, three hundred, and went in with such sh------- planning.  Imagine what a cluster-!@#$ that would have been.  And that's what you advocate? 

439445[/snapback]

 

Ok, first off, Sean Penn has nothing to do with this topic. I guess it must be one one of those far-right talking points like the "blame game" babble.

 

Secondly, how did every news outlet in the entire country get into New Orleans without "recon" assistance? I have no military background and I still believe it's not ok to take 4-5 days to deploy a military response to this national disaster. I think forty eight hours is acceptable to have at least 2000 troops and provisions on the ground with more on the way. I may not understand the military operations, but I know how dedicated they seem to be when they're given a mission. Jeees, just look at what the Coast Guard did. Do ya think they felt it was ok for the National Gaurd to take 4-5 days????

 

Lastly, Bush has even admitted he messed up and that should tell you something right there.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Ok, first off, Sean Penn has nothing to do with this topic. I guess it must be one one of those far-right talking points like the "blame game" babble.

 

He has EVERYTHING to do with this topic, as much as the news outlets do, as they faced the same problem: deploying a half-dozen or less people to an area that's practically impossible to get to. A news crew - or Sean Penn - can be supported by maybe one carload every three days...and most were only there for 3-5 days anyway. That's a MUCH different problem from moving an battalion or two of National Guard troops (which, by the way, are a state and not federal resource, which kind of shoots down your "Bush sucks" argument anyway) into the region for a long-term mission.

 

Plus...you have no idea how well the news crews were supported anyway. Could be that they were dumped bareass with two days' worth of personal supplies. It could very well be that the pissy little tantrum the media's throwing over the "slowness" of the response is due in large part to their reporters being stranded without the government rescuing them. In a lot of cases (Shep Smith, for example), I'm far more ready to believe they were upset because they weren't being rescued than they have some compassion for their fellow man.

 

Secondly, how did every news outlet in the entire country get into New Orleans without "recon" assistance? I have no military background and I still believe it's not ok to take 4-5 days to deploy a military response to this national disaster. I think forty eight hours is acceptable to have at least 2000 troops and provisions on the ground with more on the way. I may not understand the military operations, but I know how dedicated they seem to be when they're given a mission. Jeees, just look at what the Coast Guard did. Do ya think they felt it was ok for the National Gaurd to take 4-5 days????

 

That's a classic paragraph. "I have no military background...I may not understand the military operations...I think forty-eight hours is acceptable." In other words "I'm completely ignorant...but you're still wrong." You would have done far better to just keep your mouth shut.

 

Lastly, Bush has even admitted he messed up and that should tell you something right there.

439522[/snapback]

 

It tells me that even a president who has expressed utter contempt for the media and their bull sh-- claim of "representing the people" can cave to them if their onslaught is strong enough. Even if he WERE responsible and messed up, the errors that led to the loss of New Orleans were made YEARS before Katrina was even imagined.

[Ghost of BiB]

"I'll admit I have no idea of what I'm talking about as I give my uninformed, TV driven opinion. That makes me balanced, and credible.." OK, I interpreted. Tell me where I'm wrong?

 

You have a future in American popular media, 1billsfan, if you're not, you have a calling. You should really pursue this. You have a true future here. I shouldn't even address this, but sometimes people really get me to shaking my head.

 

In fairness, no one is explaining a lot of this, and it takes a lot more than most people are willing to read or listen to to do so. Still, it's not as easy as you think.

[SilverNRed]

Scotty should have beamed in the 82nd Airborne 10 minutes after the storm hit, but when you decide you are going to put 20,000 people into a football stadium as your "plan" you better be able to feed and water them.

439511[/snapback]

One of the idiots on CNN was whining about why we didn't drop paratroopers on NO the day after the levees broke. Paratroopers!

 

Now even if we had paratroopers ready to be deployed in the United States, dropping them into a flooded city is probably only going to result in a lot of families finding out that their paratrooper sons and daughters drowned in NO. You don't drop paratroopers into the water. One of the Nazi defenses in France prior to D-Day was to flood areas so that paratroopers who landed there would drown. And if we told our paratroopers to pack light (and not be weighted down), basically all we'd achieve by successfully putting them in NO is add a few thousand more people with guns and little to eat or drink.

 

And that's assuming paratroopers are trained and prepared to quell riots (which I sincerely doubt they are).

[SilverNRed]

It tells me that even a president who has expressed utter contempt for the media and their bull sh-- claim of "representing the people" can cave to them if their onslaught is strong enough.  Even if he WERE responsible and messed up, the errors that led to the loss of New Orleans were made YEARS before Katrina was even imagined.

439538[/snapback]

Bush choose his words carefully but of course it wasn't reported that way. He basically said he would take responsibility for whatever mistakes were made and, like most Americans, understood the importance of finding out what went wrong. That, of course, is much different than saying "We failed misearably and it was my fault," which is basically how CNN, the AP, and everyone else posted the story. Basically he admitted that mistakes were made but did not say how many or how grave these mistakes were. Pretty innocuous.

 

Then again, Pres. Bush has about the worst PR people that a President can have so it's not surprised that they'd have him do something like this.

[GG]

Without an adequate sized force also trained in crowd control, I think it possible we could have seen a Kent State x 10.

 

You know, I was thinking of exactly the same thing.

 

But can you imagine the great songs they could write about that one?

[Dan Gross]

Bush choose his words carefully but of course it wasn't reported that way.  He basically said he would take responsibility for whatever mistakes were made and, like most Americans, understood the importance of finding out what went wrong.  That, of course, is much different than saying "We failed misearably and it was my fault," which is basically how CNN, the AP, and everyone else posted the story.  Basically he admitted that mistakes were made but did not say how many or how grave these mistakes were.  Pretty innocuous.

 

Then again, Pres. Bush has about the worst PR people that a President can have so it's not surprised that they'd have him do something like this.

439603[/snapback]

 

He went even narrower than that. He said he was responsible for all the mistakes made by the Federal Gov't. Clearly not taking blame for the fine folks running the state/city...

[GG]

Yes, of course Katrina's wrath was the major factor... IMHO, I just know there is more to the failures than the storm.

439149[/snapback]

 

How hard of a storm would it have to be for us to admit that maybe we haven't developed the tools to defeat nature?

 

You brought up all the things before - the continual draining of the wetlands, elimination of the barrier islands, etc that would have stayed the damage. But all those things were done to allow more people to live in an area that perhaps shouldn't house a lot of people.