Yes, that is certainly true. The Times-Picayune series was extremely detailed and accurate. I did not mean to say that the possible (and probable) scenarios were not understood in advance.
My point was that FEMA was/is responding to a disaster area far, far larger than New Orleans, and, regardless of the expectations of particular catastrophic results, many logistical details simply can't be worked out until after the storm hits. Like: where are the victims? Who needs food? How can we get there? Are there remaining hazards that must be mitigated before rescues can even begin? And remember, the planning and rescues had already begun in the wake of the hurricane before the levees were breached, which necessitated a whole new cycle of reaction and planning.
Everything before the disaster is just guesswork. As to your point about the inadequate levee system, there is no doubt that improving the levees was a very low priority in Louisiana government over the years. Even the improvement project that was underway was not designed to withstand a Category 4 Hurricane. I've heard some critics say "why would you plan only for the most likely, and not plan for the worst case?!" Well, you always plan for the most likely case. This is the first Cat 4-5 to hit New Orleans in the 200 years the city has been there. If being prepared for the worst possible case is the standard, we are all in for some colossal taxes and spending.
Having said that, the many years of huge funding for Corps of Engineers projects in Louisiana would certainly have allowed for levee improvements beyond what was done, and many officials, including Nagin and Blanco, will have to answer for how that money was actually (mis)spent.
And don't apologize for the rant - it was a good one!
I'm one of the guilty ones who believes everyone, everywhere, must prepare for the worst-case scenario. Thanks for your information. Two hundred years is a long time, at least as far as lifetimes last. I guess it's enough to look at what happened 5, 10, 20 years ago for many to gauge the probabilities of what to expect now. But is that good enough? Especially today when the threat of another terrorist attack hovers over us? Straighten me out here: the world watches the unending scenes of misery in our gulf states, played out day after day on TV; it shows us as a country which is still vulnerable...unprepared to defend itself against those who hate us, want us dead. And, repeating myself, to rebuild a city 9' below sea level, with the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi R.encircling it sounds to me like a bad idea. And a whole other subject: FEMA insures those who choose to build homes in risky locales and FEMA does this with our money! If you haven't already read it, see John Stossel's account of this subject. He openly admits to being one of FEMA's (our) beneficiaries. But this is another subject for another thread.