Govt. Response to Katrina

[Jennifer]

@DarthMaximus:

To Haxor…

Yes more power to States.

Yes the State gov’t in LA failed in this case, IMO.
Why? Becasue they looked immediately to Feds to bail them out, without having a plan in the meantime.

But the more power locally the better. The more control you have as a voter.

Wrong, they had a plan. They had numerous plans. They had plans from evacuation consultants with expert knowledge. They had plans from the Army corps of Engineers. They had self developed plans. They even had a special income tax on the population to fund the evacuation should disaster strike - a fund that no one can find at the moment…guess they didn’t look into the mayor’s trust funds…oh, sorry, did I just accuse a politician of stealing money???

[cystic crypt]

ok, i don’t understand US politics - obviously. Little of this article actually made any sense to me.
@DarthMaximus:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana’s governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush’s senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

if this was San Fran and an earthquake, would this be necessary? And i didn’t get from the rest of the article why it would be “necessary to seize control” in order to make convoys and trains physically move faster and for troops to deploy faster.

Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco’s control. The debate was triggered as officials began to realize that Hurricane Katrina exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration’s senior homeland security officials, the hurricane showed the failure of their plan to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated and unable to act quickly until reinforcements arrive on the scene.

are these guys idiots? I mean 9/11 made it obviou that entire firehouses might be decimated in the event of a catastrophe. And again - you guys have hurricanes, torndados, earthquakes and volcanos. How is the possibility of local help being taken out not accounted for?? If anything, on the federal level, this is the only thing that should be accounted for (as on the local level one would hope that they would be working on the assumption of local forces being in play - presumably if they were out of commission, then so might the people who would only be able to command them (and not national guard types).

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Governor Blanco would have resisted surrendering control of the military relief mission as Bush Administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. While troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

idiots.
“we need help”
“we can’t give you help as i need the legal authority of the insurrection act”
“but there is an insurrection”
“well, you may not want to let us help you by deploying troops before the chaos for which they are needed resolves”

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

“Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?” asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

it was ok in other people’s countries where they were actively killing people . . . .
Anyway - why would it have been necessary to actually take command rather than say “can we help you and how? Here are the resources - do with them what you require”.

The governor illustrated her stance when, overnight Friday, she rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana Guard.

the article does not say why she rejected this.

But the call never came, in part because military officials believed National Guard troops would get there faster and because administration civilians were worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters, administration officials said.

so what would happen if they DIDN’T shoot looters? I guess things would be the same except there would be fewer looters (i’m not about to throw a chair through an electronics store window with a dozen solders down the street).

The Pentagon is reviewing events from the time the hurricane reached full strength and bore down on New Orleans and five days later when Mr. Bush ordered 7,200 active-duty soldiers and Marines to the scene.

why did it take 5 days? This makes no sense. Either they weren’t needed - in which case why send them, or they were needed right away - in which case why wait??

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

“ring . . . hello? would you like some active-duty military units?”
“YES! PLEASE!!”
that did not take so much consideration, i don’t think.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Governor Blanco said her state troops were missed. “Over the last year we have had about 5,000 out, at one time,” Governor Blanco said. “They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor.”

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

i’m amazed that the effects of having 5000-odd solders in the middle east was even a question - especially given that they might actually have been there at day 0 rather than waiting to get 1000 troops . . . .

“This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties,” Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested the active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon’s leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans should be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

again - this is pretty sad. One would expect at the federal level that they would look at exactly this scenario. Especially in light of 9/11. In fact - i would be looking at not only scenarios where the local help is taken out, but various layers of potential help is crippled. Afterall - the pentagon kind of absorbed a bit of damage on 9/11 - why not assume that a future terrorist attack would be even nastier? On a local or even state or federal level??

[Mary]

And yes, the President’s followed all the paperwork. He didn’t declare war on Iraq, Congress did. He didn’t declare war on Terrorism, Congress Did. He didn’t issue warrants for the arrest of Saddam Hussein or Ossama Bin Laden, the Supreme Court did.

Open a law book, open a history book and turn off Michael Moore so maybe you get an actual fact once in a while, Mary.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

“On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.”

Here’s a lawsuit arguing that Bush should NOT have the authority to declare war: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/14/cf.opinion.jackson.lawsuit/

“WASHINGTON (CNN) – A group of lawyers, soldiers and parents went to court in Boston to ask a judge to issue an injunction against President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to keep them from attacking Iraq unless Congress declares war.”

I don’t know how or why the moderators still let you post. This is just trolling. It took about 10 seconds to Google some links to prove you wrong yet again.

[Guest]

Jenn … you got something totally mixed up there:

@Jennifer:

FDR - Biggest national debt in US History with ramifactions still not seen today
…
Reagan - Saved us from nuclear annihilation

They are the other way round.
FDR saved you from nuclear annihilation by waging war against the axis and creating the bomb first.
Reagan drove you close to bankruptcy by overspending on the military while having a stupid economic policy that relied on tax breaks for the rich and incurring more and more debts on the state/nation.

[Jennifer]

Mary, did you miss that entire Congressional Declaration of War? The details on how to fight the war are up to the President, but he still waited for the DOW. Really, that’s like saying that the Lieutenant is running the police department because he decided to collect the evidence first instead of capture the murderer.

CC: You are a bit confused. The need of the Insurrection Act was to wrest control from the Governor and FORCE Federal aid down her throat. Otherwise, he had to legall wait until she finally declared, by official decree, that a state of emergency existed in New Orleans before he could send military forces in. This isn’t Canada or Europe or a 3rd world nation. We have many, MANY laws preventing the government from ever using active duty, federal militias against the population of this country. Rather, we reserve that wholey and completely to the national guards, police and federal police forces (FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, etc…though the CIA isn’t really a police force.)

I’m not saying that other countries can order infantrymen into the streets to machine gun their populations. Frankly, I care so little about the military state of affairs of other countries, I really have no idea what your laws are. I’m just stating, that the Insurrection Act is the ONLY piece of legislation in existance that grants the President of the United States (with Congressional approval) the authority to declare martial law and invade the state. I believe it was created to give Abraham Lincoln permission to quell the uprisings in the confederacy.

F_alk:

All debts incurred by all social programs instituted by FDR are his debts. Thus, he created the largest US debt in history. None of FDR’s new deal worked, all it did was continually wrack up more and more debt for this nation, but it did make the population feel better because they were doing something - ineffective somethings, but something none-the-less. The only thing that brought us out of the depression was WWII and I guess we should thank the Axis powers for that because without hte war, we probably would have been in depression until the 50s - according to many leading econoomists.

And for the record, the best thing FDR did was create the FDIC which insurred bank accounts. And that only becuase it cost next to nothing to institute and had the same benefit of making the people think we were making progress.

Reagan killed the Soviet Union and brought peace in his time, thus saving us from nuclear annihilation - the same annihilation that Kennedy and Carter and Johnson and everyone else between Truman and Reagan couldn’t save us from.

Please, when referring to US Presidents, at least open a book.

[DarthMaximus]

CC,

Jen laid it out pretty good regarding Federal intervention in States.

Yes it is a bit combersome and annoying to say

Pres: We can help
Gov: Good we need help
Gov: We “officially” authorize the use of Fed troops in this state
Pres: Fed troops are now under control of the Gov
Gov: Thank you. Now troops do this, that and the other…

But this is how it works in the US.

The Pres at no time (barring special orders ie Insurrection Act or whatever), can enter a State with Federal troops under the command of the Pres.

I think this is obvious as to why this could lead to HUGE problems.

Any President at any time could then say the smallest little rainstorm or whatever is a disaster and start taking control of States with Federal troops. This is bad.

The whole point of having States is to act as a buffer to the Federal gov’t.

The Gov is always in control of his/her state. Period.
With the exception of the Insurrection Act or I suppose the Gov could reliquish power, but even then it would go to the LT Gov.

Presidents can’t simply order Fed troops and take control of States.

[DarthMaximus]

Mary,

For the millionth time CONGRESS GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE. Ie, go to war, to commit troops in iraq, to commit troops to enforce UN resolutions. Pick your terms, I don’t care which one you call it, but CONGRESS GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY. If you have a problem you should take it up with your Congressmen.

From OCT 10, 2002

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/

EDIT:

Spelling

Also this is Oct 10 2002 which predates your article, which is why Bush says I commit troops blah blah blah in your article. He IS the Commander in Chief of the US army.

EDIT 2:

I don’t know how or why the moderators still let you post. This is just trolling. It took about 10 seconds to Google some links to prove you wrong yet again.

I think that comment is unnecessary.

It only took me about one second to do a google search and prove YOU WRONG. So are you now a troll?

Ya gotta stop listening to Moore or Franken or any of those other kooks who spew that garbage.

Edit 3

Your piece about the lawyers is an opinion piece. They say argue against, but it is just not the case. I’m guessing this case was thrown out or at the very least went nowhere as we did go to war in March of that year and it was Congress who authorized it and Gave Bush the power to Commit troops.

You can quibble of wording all you want, no it wasn’t an Official Dec of War, however it gave Bush the power to use force/commit troops, etc. I don’t know signs like a Dec of War to me, but we won’t call it that.

On a historical note I don’t believe we have had a Declartion of War in this Country since WW2.

[DarthMaximus]

Getting sick of Editting, but this will be my last post on Iraq and War resolutions. As they are off topic.

This is a loink of when the US has had a Dec of War and when it hasn’t. and in the case of no, they list what gave the authority, ie Tonkin Resolution etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Here’s the link for the War in Iraq from the same site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

Again, both the House and Senate voted to give Bush the power.
Take this up with your Senators and Congressmen if you dissapprove, but don’t blame Bush when he clearly got approval from Congress.

As I said this will be my last post on Iraq in this thread, and sorry for any of my derailing, however I had to set the record straight and correct lies when I see them.

[Mary]

Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.

[Mary]

Jen, find just one news site with “Congress declares war on Iraq”, and link it here. Otherwise, STFU because you have no clue what you’re talking about.

[DarthMaximus]

I’m breaking my own rule. :D

Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.

I fail to see how.

Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.

And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.

There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.

You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.

It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.

Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.

I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.

Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.

[Guest]

@Jennifer:

Reagan killed the Soviet Union and brought peace in his time, thus saving us from nuclear annihilation - the same annihilation that Kennedy and Carter and Johnson and everyone else between Truman and Reagan couldn’t save us from.

Maybe you should look up “annihilation” as deeply as you looked up “tax evasion”- If they did not save you from annihilation … how comes you can still keep annoying me with your postings?

Anyway … i am so tired of your senseless blablabla. Go to the army, go to war … i don’t care as long as you just go.

[Mary]

@DarthMaximus:

I’m breaking my own rule. :D

Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.

I fail to see how.

Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.

And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.

There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.

You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.

It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.

Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.

I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.

Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.

So you agree Congress did not declare war on Iraq. That’s all I wanted.

[Guest]

You people are hopeless, this thread is about the Hurricane, NOT THE WAR!!!

[Mary]

@DarthMaximus:

I’m breaking my own rule. :D

Darth, giving authority to go to war and declaring war are two different things. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Bush did. Find a link if you think otherwise.

I fail to see how.

Whatever. I provided links show how Congress Authorized the use of force.

And Links as to when Dec of War was used. Which was last in WW2.

There was no Dec of War for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, among other conflicts since 1950.

You can quibble about wording all you want, but the authorization WAS given by Congress to the Pres.

It is like the thing with China in Apr of 01, does Regret mean I’m sorry. It is semantics.

Use of Force means war, what did these Congressmen/women think they were doing. If they didn’t know what they were voting for they should be removed for incompetence.

I think this is an issue that the Dems must sort out amongst themselves.
You should be mad at the Dems who gave the authority and try to remove them from office if you feel it was wrong.

Getting mad at Bush does you no good. If your elected Democrat officials go against what you believe you have to start voting for some different people.

Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.

Congress was told Iraq had WMD’s, ties to Al Queda, and was on the verge of getting a nuke. Rather than DECLARE WAR on Iraq, they gave Bush authority to DECLARE WAR, shifting the repsonsibility of DECLARING WAR to the White House. The hope was, if Saddam knew that Bush can DECLARE WAR himself, perhaps Saddam will finally comply with all resolutions.*

*Some phrases were highlighted for clarity.

Now, do I blame Congress? To some extent, yes. They were too trusting that Bush would use diplomacy, instead of rushing to war like he did. But blame ultimately lies with those who lied to Congress, chose to go to war, and had no clue what to do after we “won”: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

[Janus1]

Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.

president bush AND congress give the soldiers the authority to kill iraqi soldiers and insurgents in iraq. does that mean president bush and congress killed iraqi soldiers and insurgents?

if your paying such attention to detail, you should note that Bush didnt declare war either, since he is not capable. only congress can declare war. under the war powers act, the president can use the military for up to 90 days i think, but then he must be authorized by congress to extend that. so yes, congress authorized bush to use force, and no, bush did NOT declare war.

[Mary]

@Janus1:

Giving someone the power to use force does not = using force yourself. The state of California authorizes police officers to use force when necessary. Does that mean California beat up Rodney King? Lol.

president bush AND congress give the soldiers the authority to kill iraqi soldiers and insurgents in iraq. does that mean president bush and congress killed iraqi soldiers and insurgents?

if your paying such attention to detail, you should note that Bush didnt declare war either, since he is not capable. only congress can declare war. under the war powers act, the president can use the military for up to 90 days i think, but then he must be authorized by congress to extend that. so yes, congress authorized bush to use force, and no, bush did NOT declare war.

The Authorization of Force bill that Congress passed gave Bush the authority to use the military against Iraq, which he did very quickly. He might not have said, “Thus I declare war on Iraq”, but it was the White House that ordered “Shock and Awe” to begin. Once the bombs start dropping, you’re at war.

Once again: Congress gives Bush authority to attack. Congress did not order the invasion. Bush did.

[DarthMaximus]

Of Course!
Bush IS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. that is his job. It is laid out in the Constitution.

Of course he tells the army where to go. Ultimately Generals/Admirals/etc advise the Pres and the Pres makes the call, that is what the Commander in Chief does.

Congress Authorized the use of force against Saddam.
But Congress can’t tell the Army what to do, only the Pres can.

[Mary]

Yes, both Bush and Congress were necessary conditions for the Iraq war- one to give authority and the other to actually use it. But Other factors tip the balance of blame over to Bush: It was his party in control of both houses of Congress, and the Bush administration either misstated the reasons for going to war or out-and-out lied.

[DarthMaximus]

Becaue you do not agree with it, or choose to focus in on only one reason (wmd) does not make it a lie.

From the Wiki link - reasons listed in war resolution:

_The act cited several factors to justify a war:

Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Iraq’s connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States_

I do not know why some people are so eager to defend Saddam. Who cares why he was removed. It is a good thing he is out of power.