Skip to comments.Hurricane Katrina - why the government response was fine
Posted on 09/07/2005 7:00:26 AM PDT by mudblood
Everyone is howling for blood in the media over the events in New Orleans and that other state...what is it called? Oh yes, Mississippi. They think that SOMEONE is to blame for the slow response. If you think about it though, there really isn't much that could have been done, even if the response were lightning fast because of the events leading up to the disaster. My analysis:
1) Anyone who didnt leave when they could have and died: feds/FEMA/Governor couldnt have done anything to help them short of evacuation by force, and in that only the Governor had the right.
2) Anyone who lived through the hurricane was only inconvenienced by the time it took to rescue them. Being thirsty, hungry, hot, waiting on streets or rooftops for days all inconveniences. But then thats what city-stomping disasters do (when they dont kill you). I actually heard one survivor complaining that they didn't have hot food in the Superdome...
3) All the FEMAs in the world couldnt have saved a single house or piece of property.
4) Civil unrest: it was not an uprising, so the President had no legal power to usurp control. I dont really believe all the stories about shootings and hold-ups mainly because there was enough free stuff around that it wasnt exactly necessary. As soon as someone points a gun at you on your roof and says gimme the money, the joke is revealed if it isnt in my pocket then its downstairs under 20 feet of water. Thus, the civil unrest was overblown. This is probably why the only news footage we saw was of the same guy running through the water with a handful of Nikes, or the same lady trying to smash through a store window, or the guy pushing a candy-bar stand.
5) The President: even on 9/11, the President didn't actually DO anything. Even the week or two following 9/11 he didn't do a tremendous amount. He was a leader mainly, he "called for money to be given" secondly. His main usefulness was in the coming months, where he ramped up for attack and began restructuring the way we defend ourselves from terrorism. Unless we are attacked by a country or a state breaks away from the Union, there's nothing the president can really do that local governments cannot, other than be a leader and "call for money to be given".
Ok, so that's my first "vanity" posting.
If Bush walked on water, some folks would blame him for not swimming.
Good post. There seems to be a lack of common sense these days, but then I'm not involved in the loss directly.
You nailed it. If the president had "usurped" the Governer's power, it would have been impeachable...and don't believe that the Dems wouldn't have seized on that. Most idiots in this country think of the President as some kind of "SuperGoverner". Those idiots know nothing about the Constitution. And one more rant I have, this is a free country. That means people are free to make stupid decisions, and they are free to experience the consequences. If I am asked to evacuate, I can exercise my freedom to ignore it, but I also am free to die from that decision. There is one...and only one person responsible for the death. I understand that a lot of those people couldn't actually walk out of the city, but that is a different situation...normally, that is where family and friends come in.
Remember - there cannot be any positive stories about the response in Mississippi, because Barbour is a Republican and well, the MSM doesn't want to create another Rudy.
Folks - let's just face it - democrats/liberals are never going to be any help with anything - whether it's a major catastrophe, a war, an economic issue, whatever. They will be nowhere to be found, other than writing snippy little hate pieces in their plush Manhattan digs.
So, can we just start ignoring liberals, kind of like when you ignore your kids' whining after a while?
I agree with much of what you have said.
There is always room for improvement, at all levels of government, in planning and response. Hindsight is 20-20. If we learn from this, then that's a silver lining to a very dark and ugly cloud.
You are right that NOTHING would have stopped those many, many buildings from being blown away. And many people could have left, but didn't.
What I find interesting is that we didn't hear of widespread government failure or massive lawlessness in Mississippi, which was the hardest hit. OK, New Orleans is a large city, and the flooding presented its own dangers. But grossly ineffective state and local governments and a culture of violence and criminality seem to have made the most difference.
Also, there ARE limits to what the federal government can legally do. Maybe we need to look at that. The Bush administration will bear some of the blame, like it or not, for appearing to defer too much to a governor who obviously is not qualified for even the lowest elective office. And the President's opponents and the media will pile on (and have done so already) as much as possilbe, overplaying their hand and having it boomerang on them as usual.
I think everybody got a bit "fooled" when New Orleans was spared the brunt of the storm on Monday. Remember all the "New Orleans dodged the bullet" headlines from Monday afternoon until about a day later, after the levee broke? It was about another 24 hours before the Superdome lawlessness and looting stories started to circulate.
I say investigate and let the chips fall where they may. No one should be afraid of a full, fair and impartial inquiry - if in fact such a thing is possible in today's atmosphere. I try to "test" my feelings on a matter by saying what if the shoe was on the other foot - what if a Democrat president and a Republican governor and mayor were in charge. Would I feel differently? Would the media?
This is a disaster of almost Biblical proportions. It's a shame anyone has to expend an ounce of energy on finger pointing when there are still untold corpses strewn about the countryside and thousands upon thousands whose lives have been shattered. But I guess we're on notice as to what we're facing. If Bush has somehow "federalized" the State of Louisiana, the law be damned, the left would be howling about thew "illegal" and "unilateral" action, comparing it to their view of Iraq and calling Bush a dictator. They would add in that he was being a hypocrite about "states' rights" into the mix. And then they would keep blaming him because unless he could have stopped the storm from hitting the US MANY PEOPLE WERE GOING TO DIE NO MATTER WHAT, sad to say.
Again, if there's incompetence on the federal level, let's weed it out. I just want the whole picture to come to light. And a sizeable portion of the media, if not the public, will never give Bush credit for anything. I like it best when he just does what he thinks is right and ignores the baseless criticism.
Good points. I hit similar points on my post a few further down the page.
If i were a "moonbat" with crazy DU type conspiratorial thoughts I might start thinking that the Democrat Louisiana governor was deliberately dragging her feet in an effort to make Bush look bad. It's hard to believe anyone could be so grossly incompetent and still making a good faith effort to do her job. But unfortunately such utter lack of leadership is indeed possible.
Jimmy Carter proved that . . .
Also consider there were scenes like that being played out all over an area the size the UK. That TV cameras caught it made it prolem # 1.
No water at the Superdome clearly falls in the lap of the Mayor, if anyone.
Very good points, especially the reminder on how the media proclaimed they "dodged the bullet". I wonder how many people died because of those statements? Unknowable, but chilling.
Indirectly you and all Americans are whenever we pay our taxes.
I am getting to hate.....Katrina!
It is. But the media needs to grind out stories 24/7.
Maybe the FEMA director should have asked Russert what Russert asked him - do you think you should resign? (I'm being flippant, I know, but you get the point.)
I wish they used all that energy to get people out of NO!
Texas is getting more refugees than any other state -- that's fine, we'll take them all -- but we need help providing them with food, clothing, and shelter.
If you are a refugee, you can information that will help you find relief. If you want to donate or volunteer, you can find someone who needs you.
Right now the site mostly covers Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio but I will add various churches, schools, and other charities in Ft. Worth and Lubbock tonight. My wife spent yesterday at Reunion Arena in Dallas handing out care packages and otherwise ministering to the refugees as a representative of her employer.
There are a lot of churches and other organizations in Texas that need help in dealing with the problem and I would greatly appreciate it if you would get the word out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.