Posted on 09/04/2005 1:56:57 AM PDT by Crackingham
Like many seismic events, Katrina’s true impact might take a while to absorb. What started as a natural disaster soon became an unforeseen social meltdown and potential political crisis for the president. The poverty, anarchy, violence, sewage, bodies, looting, death and disease that overwhelmed a great American city last week made Haiti look like Surrey. The seeming inability of the federal or city authorities to act swiftly or effectively to rescue survivors or maintain order posed fundamental questions about the competence of the Bush administration and local authorities. One begins to wonder: almost four years after 9/11, are evacuation plans for cities this haphazard? Five days after a hurricane, there were still barely any troops imposing order in a huge city in America. How on earth did this happen? And what will come of it?
In the past, American disasters have led to political changes — the Johnstown flood in 1889 and the Galveston hurricane in 1900 led to fury at class privilege and a government that seemed not to care for the poor. The 1927 flood in New Orleans — and the inequalities it exposed — propelled the rise of the populist demagogue Huey Long. There seems to me a strong chance that this calamity could be the beginning of something profound in American politics: a sense that government is broken and that someone needs to fix it. It did, after all, fail. It failed to spend the necessary money to protect New Orleans in the first place. This disaster, after all, did not come out of the blue.
Below is a passage from the Houston Chronicle in 2001, which quoted the Federal Emergency Management Agency on the three likeliest potential disasters to threaten America. They were: an earthquake in San Francisco, a terrorist attack in New York City (predicted before 9/11), and a hurricane hitting New Orleans.
Read this prophetic passage and weep: “The New Orleans hurricane scenario may be the deadliest of all. In the face of an approaching storm, scientists say, the city’s less-than-adequate evacuation routes would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of 10 left behind as the city drowned under 20ft of water.
“Thousands of refugees could land in Houston. Economically, the toll would be shattering . . . If an Allison-type storm were to strike New Orleans, or a category three storm or greater with at least 111mph winds, the results would be cataclysmic, New Orleans planners said.”
Katrina, of course, was category four.
So what was done to prevent this scenario? There was indeed an attempt to rebuild and strengthen the city’s defences. But the system of government in New Orleans is byzantine in its complexity, with different levees answering to different authorities, and corruption and incompetence legendary.
More politically explosive, the Bush administration has slashed the budget for rebuilding the levees. More than a year ago, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune: “It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.”
It’s still unclear whether even with higher levels of funding the levees would have been strong enough to withstand Katrina in time. The Army Corps of Engineers has backed the president and said that the levees were built for only a category three hurricane and were in satisfactory shape. But levees need constant maintenance and an agency with a one-year budget cut of $71m might have skimped. The connection between shifting funds to fight wars abroad rather than to defend against calamity at home is a politically explosive one. As one Louisianan said: “You can do everything for other countries, but you can’t do nothing for your own people. You can go overseas with the military, but you can’t get them down here.”
Please explain “The lack of response has demolished the credibility of this administration as good leadership in crisis.”
I understand how credibility was lost due to the ignorance of many citizens and the agenda of many news agencies, but what “lack of response”?
After consulting relatives and friends we have concluded that you should start contributing to Moveon.org.
maybe a million more than that if they you add the fraudulent votes he got
I don't see Andrew Sullivan flying down to New Orleans on his magic carpet to save anyone , if I may suggest...When the levees broke, the waters rose and Andrew Sullivan crawled under his keyboard till he thought it was safe emerge and finger point for his own failure. Andrew Sullivan Knows it all just ask the panty waste
I'm expecting Eddie Rendell to hit New Orleans soon and start taking names, you can never get too many folks on those Philly voter rolls.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I need the specific source of your information. Thanks.
"After talking to relatives and friends, it is now clear that politically the Bush Presidency is over"
Guess you and I travel in much differt circles. My relatives and friends don't blame Presidenr Bush at all. We are putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the people of NO..politicians and residents alike. Hopefully people will take a lesson from this and learn to be better prepared to TAKE CARE OF TEMSELVES.
The sources were mentioned in Howlins post.
Every word in this article is true. It does not actually blame Bush and asks reasonable questions. Bush may bear little blame in this matter, but he needs to come out swinging to defend his actions.
It does not help that he has already said the Feds performance was unacceptable. If it was, he needs to fire somebody, preferably somebody with name recognition.
He needs an explanation of why it took 6 days to get any relief to people at the superdome. "Governor Blanco failed to request it" might do the trick if Bush had gone on TV on day 2 and screamed for Blanco to let him in. But he didn't.
Nor does it help that Bush and his two principle spokesmen during this affair, Chertoff and Michael Brown, are guys who in their pronouncements conveyed absolutely no sense of the extreme urgency of the situation. (At least in statements I've seem them make.) If Norman Schwarzkopf had been in charge of FEMA, would this have happened? I think not.
Yes, as I recall, William McKinley was defeated for re-election after the 1900 Galveston hurricane. I wonder different history would have been had McKinley been able to serve a second term.
NOTE: This is the problem with coming up with a thesis for an article, and then attempting to plug in "facts" later.
I've searched the National Register unsuccessfully for New Orleans levee. Maybe you could help me out a bit more?
Or Howlin? I need chapter and verse, at least a page number, to add this to my timeline.
Since you used the info, I just assumed you knew the source. Sorry. I'll search the National Register again.
Thank you for following up on this. It's important.
It is important. But from now on, when you reference something like that, you really ought to know the source. Otherwise it's pretty much just blowing smoke. Don't mean to offend you. I'll try to find the source.
The facts need to get out early and often.
When the "big one" comes in California.....who's fault will that be?
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.