Katrina-related accusations and the info behind them

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 03:57
VIEWED: 7777
PAGE 1 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:49 PM

There have been a bunch of accusations of malfeasance since the Katrina disaster. The most widely quoted, that I've seen anyway, is this list:

Quote:
Why did FEMA block Wal-Mart shipments of water to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA block fuel shipments to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA cut emergency communication lines from the New Orleans area?
Why wouldn't FEMA let the Red Cross deliver food to the New Orleans area?
Why wouldn't FEMA let the people in downtown New Orleans leave?
Why wouldn't FEMA let others come in to deliver relief supplies or
transportation out from New Orleans?
Why did it take the government 5 days to give a "yes" to airlines who had asked to
ferry refugees out of New Orleans for free, immediately after the storm?

When I look at this list, I see two direct assumptions, and one implied:

1. These events actually happened as stated
2. FEMA was the responsible party
3. (implied) There was no good reason to take the action.

Let's start with the first three, since I already did some research on these.

Why did FEMA block Wal-Mart shipments of water to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA block fuel shipments to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA cut emergency communication lines from the New Orleans area?

These three claims apparently come from a Meet the Press interview with Aaron Broussard, the Jefferson Parish (La) President. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179790/ That's the only source I can find online. Jefferson Parish is south of New Orleans about 10 miles and extends down to the mouth of the river, so it's not really the city proper. Anyone have a confirming source for these, either that they occured or that FEMA was the prime mover?

The "Why wouldn't FEMA let the Red Cross deliver food to the New Orleans area?" one has already been disproven as to FEMA involvement. It was local authorities who did this. Their rationale was that Red Cross presence in the city would encourage people to stay, or even return. Not a good idea, as it turned out, but not intended to harm.

Haven't seen much either way about the remaining accusations. Anyone have cites to original sources?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, September 11, 2005 12:55 AM

Hello?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, September 11, 2005 9:19 PM

Any comments?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, September 12, 2005 1:17 PM

Okay no one wants to get into this apparently.

Also, with a bit more checking, I found that Ruxton's entire post containing the above claims was lifted verbatim from this blog.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php

So unless Ruxton is the Jeremy Sapienza who either authored it or copied it from somewhere else, looks like just another case of internet plagerism. If he can't take the time to either attribute or paraphrase, I guess actually backing up his assertions is out of the question.

Guess this thread can just die then.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BARNSTORMER

Monday, September 12, 2005 1:47 PM

No, don't let it die. I've been waiting for an "Official" history of events to come out. My opinion to date has been that the blame goes in many directions, but tends to center on the state and local governments.

But it is very difficult to sort out what is real with all the blatant partisanship in the stories out there.

God, I miss the good old days when you could more or less depend on reporters to give the facts with a minimum of spin.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

HERO

Monday, September 12, 2005 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Guess this thread can just die then.

We don't have to let it die. How about we label Ruxton a troll and discuss why we should ignore him?

Here, I'll go first:

I don't agree with what he says. He's a troll. Ignore him. He's in the paid employ of the Democratic Party and tasked with infiltrating this board to post his propaganda. So you better ignore him or I'll say mean things about you. Call you a troll. (Shakes fist at screen.)

There. I leave the rest to you.

H

BARNSTORMER

Monday, September 12, 2005 3:30 PM

By the way.....

What is, in your opinion, the most reliable nonpartisan factchecker website.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

GEEZER

Monday, September 12, 2005 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
We don't have to let it die. How about we label Ruxton a troll and discuss why we should ignore him?

Here, I'll go first:

I don't agree with what he says. He's a troll. Ignore him. He's in the paid employ of the Democratic Party and tasked with infiltrating this board to post his propaganda. So you better ignore him or I'll say mean things about you. Call you a troll. (Shakes fist at screen.)

There. I leave the rest to you.

H

Actually, I was considering opening a thread titled "Please Don't Tease the Loonies" suggesting that we either leave the fringe de la fringe alone, or bug them so unmercifully that their screeds get higher and higher pitched until they go ultrasonic and we can't hear them any more. But I decided not to do that.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, September 12, 2005 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

By the way.....

What is, in your opinion, the most reliable nonpartisan factchecker website.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

Actually, Factcheck.org, the Annenberg Foundation's site, is pretty good, although they only discuss a few topics. They actually look at both sides and provide cites and links for all their info.

They only have one article about Katrina, relating to the levee issue.
http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, September 12, 2005 3:51 PM

I posed a link to a comprehensive LA Times story yesterday. It answers some of these questions, and it raises and answers a whole bunch more. www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-plan11sep11,1,6089432.st
ory?ctrack=1&cset=true

At various times, people have posted links to the

NOLA Emergency Preparedness Plan www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46

and to the FEMA National Response Plan www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml.

These documents will provide the details of who was supposed to do what, when. My quick read of the NOLA Plan leave Nagin fairly unscathed. My quick read of the FEMA Plan leaves FEMA holding the bag... but I suggest that you read and interpret the article and the respective Plans for yourself. The State seems to be a whole 'nother can of worms. In some cases they did the right thing (asking for National Guard from other states beforehand, routing "counterflow" traffic etc.) in other cases (such as not allowing the Red Cross into the Superdome BEFORE the levees broke) it was the wrong thing. This site may provide some answers, I haven't had time to look at it yet www.loep.state.la.us

A couple weeks back, I suggested that we construct a timeline. Glad to see that you're on-board with the idea of finding out what REALLY happened. Also, I would be interested to see what Bush, Cheney, Townsend, Chertoff and Brown were doing spefically. Have at it!

Please don't think they give a shit.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE