Katrina-related accusations and the info behind them
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 03:57
VIEWED: 7777
PAGE 2 of 11
Don't have a lot of time to expound now, but here are links I posted on another thread.
Aid thwarted by FEMA
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05blame.htm
l
Aid refused
http://www.suntimes.com/output/hurricane/cst-nws-daley03.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and PS- I hope to get LOTS of insight from the various perspectives on these links, and others.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
We don't have to let it die
I notice you're keen to keep this one alive, Hero, but never responded to my 'Leadership' thread. What's the matter, only like to play the game when the odds are in your favor? And I'd post several of the links I've found in this one, Geezer, but Signy should do a fine job. It's not like you all read them anyway (even the Pres admits he doesn't read; the only folks in this administration that seem to are folks like Chertoff and Brown, who get their disaster news from the paper).
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:Quote:
We don't have to let it die
I notice you're keen to keep this one alive, Hero, but never responded to my 'Leadership' thread.
I never responded to your 'leadership' thread because I just wasn't inspired. Maybe if you were a better leader....
As for my humble contribution to this thread, I admit, I was poking the Ruxton. Poke, poke. Thats all.
Part of being a good leader is laughing at those who oppose you. I'm sure you get that alot, although you might not know it...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, does anyone have anything MEANINGFUL to say? If not, then this thread really DOES deserve to die. I'll play taps...
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, does anyone have anything MEANINGFUL to say? If not, then this thread really DOES deserve to die. I'll play taps...
Please don't think they give a shit.
Sorry, been busy with the real world.
The LA Times article you cite is is interesting, and raises lots of questions. The whole thing will take some time to digest and research. I notice that all the politicians quoted, from all sides, seem to be making what could be interpreted as political rather than humanitarian statements. Maybe they all don't give a shit. The disaster plans will need further study.
CANTTAKESKY's first NY Times link repeats the claims made by Jefferson Parish President Boussard on Meet the Press, but provides no validation of his claims.
I have no idea why FEMA would reject Chicago's offer of aid. Did anyone ask them for an explanation, or just assume there was something wrong with it?
The NY Times Editorial is an editorial, not news, IMHO.
All I'm really looking for is some verification or refutation of the seven accusations listed at the beginning of this thread. General discussions of the Katrina disaster are being covered quite well elsewhere.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I saw a news report on CBS the other day that had serious timeline errors (declaration of national emergency). It also highlighted selected bits of information while ignoring others (said Nagin waited to call 'an evacuation' rather than saying a voluntary evacuation was ordered, followed by a mandatory one), and in addition expressed dubious legal opinions (for example, that the Insurrection Act needed to be invoked).
You have to be careful, for too many network news shows the news means simply parroting either the administration or what some other drone said longer and louder than anyone else.
It is most helpful to read original documents (NOLA, FEMA) and original legal decisions (National Guard). In my experience, the media depend on the fact that virtually no one will fact-check them.
Failing that, foreign English-language media is a generally good source of information.
Other than that, all of the to-the-minute news sources have generally been archived, so it's not possible to go back to unfiltered sources. It would be nice if the news links from before landfall through the first few days I provided are still active, though I suspect not.
So, smooth move Geezer. You will not find many active links from when it matters.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What do you mean by validation? You want an internal memo from FEMA on the internet that shows they rejected offers of aid? The NYTimes article quotes Boussard's claims *in addition* to others who reported FEMA's rejection of aid. I'm wondering what isn't good enough for you here. What would be good enough to convince you that FEMA did indeed reject offers of aid while people were dying? I need to know so I don't waste time sending you links to the NYTimes. (And yes the last link was to an editorial. It says "opinion" right there in the link.)
Originally posted by Geezer:
CANTTAKESKY's first NY Times link repeats the claims made by Jefferson Parish President Boussard on Meet the Press, but provides no validation of his claims.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
What do you mean by validation? You want an internal memo from FEMA on the internet that shows they rejected offers of aid? The NYTimes article quotes Boussard's claims *in addition* to others who reported FEMA's rejection of aid. I'm wondering what isn't good enough for you here. What would be good enough to convince you that FEMA did indeed reject offers of aid while people were dying? I need to know so I don't waste time sending you links to the NYTimes. (And yes the last link was to an editorial. It says "opinion" right there in the link.)
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
What I said above.
1. Some independent source that it actually occurred. Aside from Pres. Broussard's statement, has there been any other report of this? Did he know it first hand or was he repeating hear-say? I don't know.
2. Verification that it was actually FEMA. Remember, it was originally stated in several places that FEMA blocked the Red Cross shipments to the Superdome. Turns out it was the State Homeland Security instead.
3. If it did occur, what was the reason behind it? Did FEMA, or whoever, have what they considered a good reason for their actions? Was the road the Wal-Mart water trucks needed to use already impassable? Was the fuel needed more somewhwere else? Was the Jefferson Parish communications net not compatible with the emergency standard everyone else was using?
I'm not saying anything did or didn't happen, I'd just like more information. Some things may have happened as described, some may have been different, and some may be political theatre, such as Mayor Nagin's request for 25,000 body bags.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On the Wal-Mart water trucks, I found this:
http://mikewas.redstate.org/story/2005/9/6/114926/3369
Quote:
Sharon Weber of Wal-Mart called back. She said that last week, FEMA diverted those water trucks to "another location, which [FEMA] felt was in greater need than where they were headed." Weber emphasized that Wal-Mart would not override any FEMA decisions made in emergency situations. So Broussard, who claimed that Wal-Mart's aid was ourtight rejected, was wrong. Based on Wal-Mart's information, their trucks were taken where FEMA thought they were needed most.
So according to this commentator, diverting the truck to an undisclosed location is not the same as "rejection." I'd buy it if they disclose the location so we can judge whether that location came anywhere near the need of 30-40K people trapped without water in the Superdome and Convention Center. I'm really scratching my head here, but I can't think of any location that would have a greater NEED, can you?
At any rate, here appears to be corroboration of the wal-mart water truck rejection, oh I mean "diversion." Whatever excuse-speak you prefer, the fact remains that 1) Wal-mart offered the water, 2) people at the Superdome and Convention Center did not get a drop to drink.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME